Re: admirers of 50% of symphonies

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> >>  (1) Each admirer admires some but not necessarily each of this 50%
> >>      of symphonies
> >
> >lei neltce be su'o le re le zgikrsimfoni,a
> >The admirers of at least one of the two of the symphonies.
>
> What would it mean if you changed the first "le" to "lo"?

lei neltce be lo re le zgikrsimfoni,a
The admirers of at least one of two of the symphonies.

You are not being specific as to which two of the symphonies you're talking
about.

> Would that make
> the count (2) of symphonies veridicial but still allow for loose use of the
> word "symphony"?

The veridicality of {lo} is not its main feature, and I think it is a mistake
to insist so much with it. {lo} has to be veridical because it is non-specific.
If you don't require veridicality, you lose all meaning because of the
non-specificity.

But you can't use veridicality to disringuish the meanings of {le} and {lo}.
99.9 % of the time {le} will also be veridical. Because of its specificity,
you can allow for not quite veridicality and still convey meaning, but this
IMHO is a secondary feature of {le}.

The difference between {le} and {lo} is specificity. With {lo} you don't
give any indication as to what are the referents that make the claim true.
You only say that there are such referents. With {le}, you have those
referents in mind, and if you are kind with your audience you will make
sure it is clear to them too what are the referents. With {lo} you are
making a general claim, with {le} you are talking about a particular
situation.

> Does the "le" in your original sentence allow for, say
> "2000" to be meant by "re", if it's understood in context?

Maybe, but that's not the main difference between the two claims.

> >Didactic? I'm not didactic.
>
> No need to be defensive -- everyone here is polydactic. zo'o

Or polydactyl maybe.

Jorge