2012/8/17 tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com&g= t;

On 17 August 2012 13:50, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote= :
> Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and un= specific.

A thing can be specific without being specified by the speaker. You are probably looking at some specific computer display but you can
just leave it unspecified in your utterance by calling it "zo'e&qu= ot;: a
specific unspecified thing.

Ok, from the ta= lker-perspective this might be true, but for the listener there is no real = difference between "he didn't tell me" (unspecified?) and &qu= ot;he doesn't care" (unspecific?)

untill of course the talker continues and finaly does specify what he = was talking about. or stating he doesn't care.

=A0

> also, i don't get your point. if i neither state nor point at whic= h of those
> fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn't really matter.

"I want to eat the apple (not the orange)" and "I want= to eat anything
(an apple, an orange, or else)" are obviously different situations, and the statement {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} would be valid for both.<= br> I'm giving you this example to demonstrate that {zo'e} can refer to=
specific (particular) or unspecific (general) objects. In the apple
case, {zo'e} would have the value of "the apple"; in the anyt= hing
case, the value would be "anything".

> Even if there were
> lying an apple and an orange, if i tell my wife i wanted to eat someth= ing
> and she got no means to tell what i want, she would give me anything.<= br>

Yes, she could give you the orange instead of the apple that you want= .
But the {zo'e} that you uttered has meant the apple, since that's t= he
value that makes {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} true here.

If you had to tell her that you want specifically the apple, you
normally wouldn't use {zo'e} -- this isn't a problem. The probl= em
would be when you used {zo'e} to mean "anything":

=A0 mi djica lo nu citka zo'e

How could your wife be sure that you meant

=A0 Any citka2 can make this bridi true.

and not

=A0 There is a citka2 that makes this bridi true.

Both interpretations would seem possible. And only the latter would
warrant a further question ("What citka2 are you talking about?")= .

Or, if she interpreted it as the firs= t one she'd give me some options from which i would choose one. Or tell= her that i don't really=A0care.

> I stil= l have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Ma= ybe not
> in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking= to
> could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is= in
> the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver.

How would you respond if you meant anything, not the apple etc.?

Ok, now you got me xD
If i meant anyt= hing and since i don't know how to express it differently, i would prob= ably repeat my statement stressing {zo'e}. Or ask what she got to offer= . Which would be a bit more productive in that situation.

or, if i remembered nalvaidza in that situation, i migh= t use that, or whatever you guys come up with.