Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And:
> The property of being a dog is "lo ka kau gerku" [I think the kau
> goes in that way; I can't find the message that gave the details].

No! {kau} is the indirect question marker!  :)

The proposed way is {lo ka xa'eda gerku}. I would prefer
{lo ka ke'a gerku}.

> The property of being a breed of dog is "lo ka gerku kau", or
> "lo ka kau se gerku".
> I take it that "the property of being X" means the properties any
> X will have by virtue of being X.
>
> I can see no essential difference between "lohe gerku" and
> "lo ka kau gerku", or between "lohe se gerku" and "lo ka kau se gerku".
> The properties of lohe gerku are properties a gerku may be expected
> to have by virtue of its being a gerku.

This seems to be converging with my view that {lo'e} is the opaque
marker, especially considering that the 'solution' for sisku was to
make its x2 a property. If {ka} is thought of as the generic bearer
of the property, rather than the property itself, it indeed starts
to resemble {lo'e} a lot.

> Two points arise:
>   (1) Does anyone have a clear idea of any difference between
>       "ka" and "lohe"? [When I say "clear", I'm thinking of,
>       & hoping for, Cowanesque standards of clarity.]

There is a difference in that {ka} is supposed to be the property, not
the generic with that property, but I can't think of any example where
property places couldn't be filled with that instead.
[Sorry, I can only manage Jorgesque standards of obscurity.]

>   (2) If the answer to (1) is "no", then perhaps "ka" might
>       be dropped in favour of the simpler "lohe". (Simpler because
>       "lohe" versus "lo ka kau".)

You ask for too much. Let's say that we might want to accept both as
equally valid and let usage decide.

But I'm starting to like your idea.

> Still to be resolved is how we get:
>   The dodo lived for seven years. The dodo ate figs.
> versus
>   The dodo existed for seven million years. The dodo is extinct.
>
> The former is how I understand "lohe".

I agree.

> For the latter, "loi" will
> not suffice, since (a) lo dodo can't be extinct, & (b) "loi
> dodo existed for 7m years" would be true if but a single dodo
> existed for 7m years, which is not the meaning we want.

I'm still not sure about this, but I don't think the properties of
{loi} are properties of each of its members. Most of its properties
are emergent ones, and not all the properties of the members (if any)
are inherited. I would go with {loi} for this meaning.

> "lohe", "ka", and the 7m-years/extinct type of generic all seem
> to involve a kind of abstraction not of a bridi but of a sumti.

Good, we are starting to agree again.

Jorge