On 5 Oct 2014 23:38, "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there's something you are talking about, and that something is identified by their satisfying the predicate "plise".
What sort of identification is this? It sounds like you're saying lo is definite, and attributing to it the sense I had understood le to have, with nonveridical description?
I'd understood {lo plise cu plise} to be necessarily true, but you seem not to, yes? So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}?
If this is already covered somewhere else on wiki or in archives, just point me to it.
And
--