Re: Jorge's right re: ni

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, John Cowan wrote:
> > By analogy with this example, I claim that whenever you have a simple
> > sumti with arguments connected by {be}, the main bridi doesn't claim
> > anything about those {be} arguments, except that they help identify
> > the one place that's privileged by being connected to the {le} gadri.
>
> I think this is a property of "le"; remember that "le broda" needn't
> be a broda.  "lo gerku be la sankt. bernard." is not only
> veridically a dog, but veridically a St. Bernard.

I think even with {lo} the same thing happens:

   mi nelci lo gerku be la sankt. bernard
   I like the really-are dogs which are st. bernards

The {la sankt bernard}, with {lo}, veridicially identifies the dogs as
saint bernards, but that's all it does; what it says I "like" is only the
dogs, not the *fact* that they are saint bernards.  For that I'd still
need an abstractor.