la adam cusku di'e
la .and. cusku di'e
> I gave the example as false statement, in contrast to {re da kanla
> lo'e remna}, which is true.
Really? Which two things? Are they both a "lo'e kanla"? I assume that
the "archetypal" human (or whatever lo'e turns out to mean) must
have "archetypal" eyes. (He certainly can't have real eyes.) But his
two eyes can't be the same "archetypal" eye. Could his two eyes be re
lo'e kanla?
{re lo'e kanla} doesn't make sense, there is only one {lo'e kanla}.
The easy way out is to say {lo'e remna cu relyselkanla}.
Otherwise I think you have to say:
lo'e kanla reroi kanla lo'e remna
The Eye eyes the Human twice.
if we don't want to repeat {kanla}, we could go with:
lo'e du reroi kanla lo'e remna
and then maybe:
zo'e reroi kanla lo'e remna
Could {zo'e} be defined perhaps as {lo'e du}?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp