On 6 May 2010 20:34, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:hmmm. So tijlan, you say that you see {lo plise} as being an implicit abstraction of the form {lo nu da plise}. But then you say that it doesn't make sense to say {mi nelci lo plise} because {lo plise} is not an abstraction. Pick a lane already =p
I'm not saying that {mi nelci lo plise} doesn't make sense. I'm saying:
1) the assumption that "an object and an event are different" does not reflect what "an object" actually is
and therefore
2) the assumption that some particular sumti should be *either* "an object" or "a state" does not make sense.