[jbovlaste] Re: Alice in Wonderland 06

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> > 2)
>> >> > p1 rutpesxu g2
>> >> > p1 is a jam/jelly/confiture/marmalde/ fruit preserve made from g2
>> >> > from
>> >> > p1 pesxu tu'a lo grute be g2
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>   Curious as to why you went with "tu'a lo grute be g2" rather than
>> >> simply "g1".  I think I know the answer (you wanted a flavor/variety,
>> >> rather than a specific fruit), and don't REALLY have a problem with
>> >> it, but it would seem to me that g1 would have accomplished the same
>> >> thing in the context.
>> >
>> > But it's g2 that defines what kind of fruit it is.  Without it its just a
> jam
>> > made from some unspecified fruit.
>> >>
>>
>>   No, because even if it's defined as a paste made from a fruit g1, I can say:
>> mi pu citka lo rutpesxu be lo fragari .ije ku'i nelrai tu'a lo
>> rutpesxu be lo vanjba It certainly is made from SOME particular
>> strawberries/grapes, and it's also true that "lo fragari cu grute la'o
>> lin. Fragaria lin.", so the strawberry is a g1, not the g2.
>
> I sort of follow what you're saying.  But what would
> {p1 rutpesxu g1} be developed from?  What is the expanded form?
> {p1 pesxu g1 noi grute g2}?
>
> totus
>
>
>
>

  Or you could still have all three in the definition if you want --
p1 is a jam made from g1, a fruit of species g2.  (Yes, noi).
                      --gejyspa