Yet The Reference Grammar gives:
la iuvál cusku di'e
1) Operating on a name, la'e transforms it into the/a referent of that name, e.g. {mi tcidu la'e zoi gy. The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul .gy.}.
It would be more proper to say {mi tcidu la'o gy. The Long Dark Tea-Time of the soul gy}.
This usage maintains {da cmene la'e da} for all {da}.
{la'e lu le gerku li'u} is the referent of "le gerku", i.e. the dog, it is not something named "the dog".
Yet The Reference Grammar gives:
"
10.3) mi viska la'e lu le xunre cmaxirma li'u
I see the-referent-of
[quote] the red small-horse [unquote]
"
and says this means seeing something named "The Red Pony" rather than
something described as a red pony.How about {lesu'u go'i}?2) Operating on an utterance, la'e transforms it into the/a meaning of that utterance. From what Iv'e seen, it appears that la'e in la'edi'u is always understood to have that meaning. For example {mi tcidu lo cukta .i la'edi'u xamgu} is understood to mean that my reading of the book is good, not that something named "I read a book" is good, as expected by interpretation no. 1. This usage maintains {la'e da smuni da} for all {da}.
That is the idea. Otherwise, how would we say the "that" of {la'e di'u}?