that was a very interesting way to explain la/le On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Jon Top Hat Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM, M CHILDS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm still having trouble understanding la and le... so for instance >> >> ninmu is a selbri >> and le would be a sumti >> >> le ninmu >> >> and the structure of ninmu is >> x1 is a woman >> >> so for the distinction between THE and A? >> and why is someone's name x1 = la? >> >> and why are le and la necessary if they are place holders for the object, >> when the selbri describes that object? >> >> ------------------------------ >> Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious >> email. Sign up >> today.<http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008> >> > > Anything which can conceivably occupy the x1 of a gismu can be {le gismu}. > {cribe}, by itself, for example, is an observative, as in "Bear!", just as > {fagri} is "Fire!". Using a gismu in this way is what's called an > observative. (As a side note, {cribe} actually means {zo'e cribe zo'e}: > "something is a bear of species something", and is a brivla.) > > {le cribe} means "the bear", that is, a particular bear that you have in > mind, whether it be the stuffed bear you had as a kid, or the bear that ate > your porridge. This is different from {cribe} in that you are indicating one > particular bear. It can be anything that you, the speaker, would call a > bear, whether it be an actual bear or not. > > {la cribe} means "Bear", as in something which is named Bear, whether that > be Frank Bear, the author, a large dog named Bear (which, I believe, one of > us has), or even a plane named Bear. This is different from both {cribe} and > {le cribe} in that you are indicating something which may not have any > resemblance to a bear, but for whatever reason bears the name. (Ugh, a > pun....) > > There is also {lo cribe}, which means "a bear", that is, anything which > could conceivably be a bear. In this case, you are not indicating anything > in particular, but a general class. In this case, your teddy bear could not > (arguably) be {lo cribe}, Frank Bear certainly would not, but the black > bears of the Americas and the one that ate your porridge are all {lo cribe}. > > {la}, {le}, and {lo} are what are known as articles: they alert the > listener that that which follows is a referrent, and also perform the task > of converting a gismu into a sumti. > > Take, for instance, the two sentences: > > ninmu clite > woman-ish type-of being polite (A feminine kind of politeness?) > x1 is a woman-ish type-of being polite in matter x2 according to custom x3 > > le ninmu cu clite > the woman is polite > the woman is polite in matter x2 according to custom x3 > > In the first sentence, ninmu combines with clite in what is called a tanru, > which is simlar to a metaphor or compound word, whereas in the second the > article {le} turns ninmu into a sumti whitch fills in the x1 of {clite}. > > I hope I'm not confusing anyone.... > > -- > mu'o mi'e .topy'at. > > .i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu > -- lykcmis ryvis na.ra'ian
