lohe, lehe & ka

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

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].
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.

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.]
  (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".)

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". 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.

"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.


----
And