On 24 May 2010 22:45, Ian Johnson
<blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Why doesn't tcati have a species place? I intuitively went to say:
mi nelci loi tcati be la'o ly. aspalathus linearis ly.
by which I meant "I like tea of the species aspalathus linearis." which is to say "I like rooibos tea.", thinking that tcati was defined as:
"x1 is a quantity of tea brewed from leaves of species x2."
or (in this case I would've been incorrect regardless, but it would make more sense this way):
"x1 is a quantity of tea brewed from leaves x2 of species x3."
Why isn't it defined in a way anything like this? Is there an "of species" sumti tcita? Preferably a bit more restricted than {le'a}?
"Rooibos" can be both a leaf and a category, just like "human" can be both an animal and a category. If a leaf goes by the name of "rooibos", then its species is naturally "aspalathus linearis".
mi nelci loi tcati be la'o ly. aspalathus linearis ly.
This means that I like tea brewed from leaves named aspalathus linearis, at the same time connoting that the leaves are of species "aspalathus linearis".
Note that this particular "la'o ly. aspalathus linearis ly." are individual leaves, not a set like a species would be. Without a context, we wouldn't be able to tell, unless it's marked with "lu'a" (individual) or "lu'i" (set).
With "loi tcati", you are implying that the bridi would not be true if the tea were not a mass, meaning that the event of you liking rooibos tea is caused by the tea being a mass. So, if I invite you to my house, I would think that I have to offer you multiple cups of rooibos tea *at once* because it's uncertain that you would be pleased with an individual cup or successive individual cups.