Re: di'e preti zo nu

[SwiftRain <swiftrain@geocities.com>]

"Jorge J. Llambías" wrote:
> 
> That is indeed right, but in my opinion it is not a general solution.
 
hmm, are you quite sure there are unacceptable logical implications of
using zo lo for this circumstance? 
 
for instance, what if i were to say: 
 
mi nitcu lo tanxe noi cumki zasti 
 - i need a box which may exist 
 
this seems to assert only that there is either 
 * lo tanxe poi zasti, a box which does exist, OR 
 * lo tanxe poi na zasti, a box which does not 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 it is clear that {lo'e tanxe} is supposed to refer to 
> all actual boxes that are typical boxes (ro lo fadni be le ka tanxe) 
> or to at least one actual typical box (lo fadni be le ka tanxe). I 
> would much prefer it to not refer to any actual box but rather to be 
> used in the cases where we need as an argument not some actual object 
> but an ideal. I just don't think it has to be the "typical", but 
> unfortunately that's how it was glossed.
 
lo'e broda doesn't refer to an actual object, but it does refer to an
imaginary object which has the typical qualities of lo'i broda. 
 
from the refgram: 
 
"The relationship between ``lo'e cinfo'' and ``lo'i cinfo'' may be
explained thus: the typical lion is an imaginary lion-abstraction which
best exemplifies the set of lions." 
 
thus example 6.5.1: 
lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a 
 - the lion dwells in africa 
 
& following that pattern: 
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! 
 
co'o mi'e bret.