On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Brian Shannon
<teapot.philosopher@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I was referring to the fact that...and not to,
> well, basically any of what you just said. In particular, my use of the word
> ...wherein the...problem you mentioned is not occurring.
But it *can* occur and so a distinction must be made. Any attempt to
represent "lo" and "le" as if they directly correspond with the
English "a" and "the" is malglico.
Simplest possible accurate translation imo (incorrectly assuming
singular for simplicity):
lo = that which really is
le = what I have in mind and describe as
When you use this translation for a short while, it becomes quick and
easy to understand the actual meaning behind each word without having
to read it like above.
Fine, then I shall rephrase what I said.
My understanding of what lo and le currently mean:
lo = indefinite article
le = definite article
Use le when you're talking about a specific thing.
Yeesh.