WikiDiscuss

A>Well, it is about {cu}, too: am I now eating a cow, could I eat a cow, did I get through a cow over a period of time, and so on, just like the issue of whether it is one cow or several or bits and pieces of perhaps several cows.

B> At least says that he thing(s) exist(s) in the implied world. Of course, {cu} says that the event happens in the implied world, so they are on a par.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pier:
> For food, {mi citka lo bakyrectu}; I wouldn't say {mi citka lo bakni}
> unless I ate the whole cow, or at least as much as is edible.

Me too. I would say {lo se citka be mi cu bakyrectu} and
{mi citka lo bakyrectu}.

A>The question of whether or not one could also just say {mi citka
lo bakni} has little to do with {lo}. It only concerns the meaning
of {bakni}. Just like the question about {lo se citka be mi cu bakni}
does not concern {cu}, it concerns {bakni}.

B>{lo} does not add meaning, it is a purely syntactical marker,
like {cu}.

> Some words could refer to individuals or substances. {panono me'andi cu zva=
> ti=20
> le foldi} vs. {lo grake be li panono me'andi cu nenri le dakli}. An Indian =
> is=20
> more likely to think of {loi me'andi} as plants considered as a mass; an=20
> American is more likely to think of a mass of powder.

That's more to do with the meaning of {me'andi} than about gadri.
lo me'andi is that which me'andis, whatever that is, that's all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/