Re: di'e preti zo nu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx]

la bret cusku di'e

>mi nitcu lo tanxe noi cumki zasti 
> - i need a box which may exist 
> 
>& is it not true that any reference to "lo tanxe" could be a reference
>to "lo tanxe noi cumki zasti" whose property of possible-existance has
>simply not been mentioned? 

I don't think this has to do with zasti-existence. When I say
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} I am claiming that there is some object,
existent or non-existent, I don't care, but such that between
that object (of which it must be true that it is a tanxe) and 
{mi} the relationship {nitcu} holds. If there is no such object
of which it can be said to be in relationship {nitcu} with {mi},
then I can't make that claim. (I'm not sure what I would need 
a non-existent box for though.) 

>lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a 
> - the lion dwells in africa 
> 
>lo'e tanxe cu se nitcu mi 
> - the box is needed by me 
> 
>i'm sure you don't want to assert that the box is needed by you in the
>same sense that the lion dwells in africa! 

No, I don't. That's why I said from the start that my use of {lo'e} is not
what can be deduced from its definition. I use {lo'e} because it's the 
only article that refers to an abstraction rather than to actual objects,
but I don't really want the restriction of typicality. I would say that
the sentences above are not so much statements about "the lion" 
and "the box", but rather about Africa and me:

lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a 
Africa is lion-inhabited.

mi nitcu lo'e tanxe
I am box-needful.

I know that this is not how {lo'e} has been defined, but having 
to choose between misusing {lo} or misusing {lo'e} I choose
the second, because {lo} already has a well defined logical 
function, and I don't find {lo'e} all that useful if restricted to 
the typical.

co'o mi'e xorxes