* Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 19:21 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Ah! Have {lo} *only* able to get kinds, you mean? That would indeed deal
> > with my main issue with kinds+xorlo. But presumably xorxes wouldn't like it.
>
> I don't have a problem with you always calling the referent of "lo
> broda" a kind, if that helps.
Not overly!
> What's the difference between saying that the referent of "lo mi
> xance" is a kind and not saying it?
Saying it means we can't make the kind-mundane distinction at least not
by using those terms.
I agree that it isn't perfect terminology, because what's on the kind
end in one situation might in other situations be on the mundane end,
and vice-versa. Whether or not there are 'absolute mundanes' isn't
really important - it's the mixing of the levels in a single {lo}-phrase
that causes the problems.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpVwZ3wxtr5U.pgp
Description: PGP signature