* Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 08:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Argh. Then yes, it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
> > semantically, and must be handled separately.
>
> For non-condensed forms (by "condensed form" I mean those forms that use a
> bridi operator in an argument position) "tu'a" behaves like the other
> LAhEs. It's the condensed forms that need special treatment, because "tu'a"
> introduces an additional level of subordinate clause.
Yes.
> > (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
> > LAhE should get it...)
>
> Well...
By which you mean it kind of still is, because it's best to minimise
what irregularity we're forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong
argument, anyway.
Regarding {lo}: could it be the "down" operator which extracts a kind
from a predicate? I'm not seeing any other options, if it is "definite"
and if \iota is out.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature