Two problems with grute2 being the species which bears the fruit grute1.
1) It breaks the frame/analogy. xance is also a body-part, but we do not have xance2 being a species. My hand is not a hand separate from your hand on a species level, just an individual organism level. "xance mi" does not imply that I am a species. With grute, I cannot say "this is an apple from this tree"; I have to say "this is a fruit of species apple" and I cannot get more specific than that (well, I personally believe that almost all 'species' terbri are actually taxa/culticar/breed terbri, but the point is that I cannot specify an individual organism which produced the fruit).
By this definition, the frame is almost that of gerku or cifnu, except the latter is not considered to be a body-part of the mother (which may have been removed).
2) It makes usage difficult. As I said in (1), the species must fill grute2. This means that neither "lo vi tricu" nor "lo plise (co'e)" will do. It must be akin to plise2. The sumti would have to be "la'o zoi lin. Malus pumila .lin", which is much less convenient. (Note: if this were a normal body-part word, then the species could be be-linked into plise2; no specificity is lost - it would just be easier to say the more common desired usage and two words harder to say the more specific, rarer desired usage).
___
I recommend reframing this word such that (only) the second terbri is redefined so as to not specify that the type is a species (instead being implicit defined, according to English grammar, as accepting only an individual).
Body-parts belong to individuals, not species.
|