From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Mon Apr 5 05:21:12 1999 X-Digest-Num: 106 Message-ID: <44114.106.583.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:21:12 -0300 From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" ma rinka le nu do'o na ciska lu lo nu li'u If I understand correctly, you're asking why don't we write {lo nu} instead of {le nu}. I will give you my answer, which does not necessarily agree with what others think. Sometimes I do use {lo nu}, but you're right that {le nu} is much more frequent. I don't think this has anything to do with {nu} in particular. It reflects the fact that {le} is much more frequently used than {lo} in general. As I understand it, {le} is used when the referent has been already identified or is readily identifiable by the description, whereas {lo} is used for unidentified or even unidentifiable referents. Some people get fixated on the veridicality issue and forget this other distinction, which I consider much more significant in determining the choice of article. I think the veridicality property is just a consequence of this more basic one of identifiability, and rarely helps in deciding which article should be used. For example, if I say: le plise cu cpana le jubme The apple is on the table. I am giving you valuable information. Presumably you already know which apple and which table I'm talking about, and if not, you should not have much trouble in identifying them. If there are no clues in the context about which apple or which table I mean, then I should not have used {le}. Of course, in all likelihood the apple is a real apple and the table is a real table, so the veridicality isssue doesn't enter into it. If I say: lo plise cu cpana le jubme There is some apple on the table. I am telling you something slightly different. Now you still have to know which table I mean, but you may not have any knowledge about the apple. I am telling you that there is one (real) apple on the table. Similarly: le plise cu cpana lo jubme The apple is on some table. Here you know which apple we're talking about, but not which table. And finally: lo plise cu cpana lo jubme There is some apple on some table. is hopelessly uninformative. It is probably true, but who cares? This shows why {lo} has to be veridical: if it wasn't, the little information that contains that sentence would be lost and it would be utterly meaningless. With {le}, on the other hand, we can be more flexible and still convey a lot of information. {le nanmu poi na nanmu} is an example of this, but it shouldn't be taken as the prototypical use of {le}! In most cases, {le broda cu broda} is actually true. That {le} allows for some leeway in this respect does not mean that veridicality is a significant issue in the choice of article. Now, in the specific case of {nu}, in most cases we have a specific and identifiable event in mind: mi gleki le nu do presku le selsnu I am happy that you asked about the subject. I am happy about a readily identifiable event: your asking about this subject. The context makes it clear that it is this subject that we're discussing now, and that it is this recent event of you asking. If I had used {lo}, I would not be identifying which event I mean. Anyway, that's how I see it. co'o mi'e xorxes