also, i don't get your point. if i neither state nor point at which of those fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn't really matter. Even if there were lying an apple and an orange, if i tell my wife i wanted to eat something and she got no means to tell what i want, she would give me anything.
I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Maybe not in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking to could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is in the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver.
2012/8/17 tijlan
<jbotijlan@gmail.com>
On 17 August 2012 12:41, Paul Predkiewicz <
paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
> but its definition says "an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value
> which makes bridi true" which would be a good description for "anything"
> aswell, or wouldn't it?
One can have a physically specific but officially unspecified child,
for example. {zo'e} is to have an unspecified but not necessarily
unspecific value, it seems. Suppose there are an apple & an orange on
a table; you want to eat the apple; below would be a valid statement:
mi djica lo nu citka zo'e
{zo'e} is referring to whatever citka2 that makes the bridi true,
which in this case is specifically the apple. If there were nothing on
the table but you nevertheless wanted to eat something, the same
statement would again be valid, except that {zo'e} would this time be
referring to unspecific objects.