Re: di'e preti zo nu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

la xod presku di'e

>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