Re: [jboske] lo/le definition

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> I think there must have been confusion about this at some time, though,
> because we have all that "is an amount of" in the gismu definitions,
> which is unnecessary but seems to imply that at some time the idea
> was that lo *does* force a countable interpretation on the predicate.

I think it does force individuality in all but a few cases where another
ontological type is given. And even there, loi or lo'i just wrap the given type
in a mass or set respectively.

-- 
John Cowan
jcowan@reutershealth.com
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin