RE: [jboske] Re: lo'edu'u

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > It depends what "explain {le'e}" means. In earlier discussion I
> > explained how the meaning "stereotypical" was arrived at, but
> > argued that it was inconsistent with the regular relation between
> > o-gadri and e-gadri and that the meaning {le'e} should have is
> > clear but other than "stereotypical". 
> 
> CLL 6.5 explicitly debunks this term as only semi-appropriate 
> In fact le'e = lo'e me le, the result of myopically singularizing
> the critters you have in mind 

Good news that we agree on this. Incredible, really, to think that
we now all basically agree on lo'e & le'e! I mean, were any two
cmavo ever so subject to disagreement and debate? So yahboo to 
those who say that jboske never makes progress. 

--And.