RE: [jboske] lo/le definition

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

John:
> 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 

So do you accept that {lo blanu} does not mean the same as 
{da poi blanu}, then?

--And.