| lojbab-xorxes-lojbab:
<> >A question iswhether one really needs a predicate that > >totally within itself with no other sumti means "is a Ford". > >Right. And would the same conversion apply to "is a Picasso"? >And then, would it extend to "is a Beethoven" about a symphony? >Or "is a Shakespeare" about a play? Or "is aEurhythmics" about >a song? Sounds English-colloquial to me. srana seems adequate. Though probably co'e is even better.> I kinda like {co'e}, though its total non-commitment to any particular relation gets back to what {me} became at a certain point. Of course, with {le} we are home free anyhow, but with {lo} we get into complications about things made by Ford, things that belong to the (various) Fords, things that fell on the (various) Fords, and so on for every. But it does give a device for picking the colloquial (but not only English, surely) use of proper names in common-noun senses. Of course, that idiom might ruin {co'e} for its main invisible use as the predicate suppressed by {tu'a}. |