Subject: Re: Grammar Clarifications

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 20:56:17 EDT

lojbab-xorxes-lojbab:
<> >A question iswhether one really needs a predicate that
> >totally within itself with no other sumti means &quot;is a Ford&quot;.
>
>Right. And would the same conversion apply to &quot;is a Picasso&quot;?
>And then, would it extend to &quot;is a Beethoven&quot; about a symphony?
>Or &quot;is a Shakespeare&quot; about a play? Or &quot;is aEurhythmics&quot; 
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}.