Still .e'u that we create a list of examples to translate each representing a different aspect of meaning. Some will be translated with {ro}, some with {su'o}.
But we'll discuss the other situations.
On Friday, August 17, 2012 6:21:01 PM UTC+4, tijlan wrote:
On 17 August 2012 13:50, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.pre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspecific.
A thing can be specific without being specified by the speaker. You
are probably looking at some specific computer display but you can
just leave it unspecified in your utterance by calling it "zo'e": a
specific unspecified thing.
> 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.
"I want to eat the apple (not the orange)" and "I want to eat anything
(an apple, an orange, or else)" are obviously different situations,
and the statement {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} would be valid for both.
I'm giving you this example to demonstrate that {zo'e} can refer to
specific (particular) or unspecific (general) objects. In the apple
case, {zo'e} would have the value of "the apple"; in the anything
case, the value would be "anything".
> 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.
Yes, she could give you the orange instead of the apple that you want.
But the {zo'e} that you uttered has meant the apple, since that's the
value that makes {mi djica lo nu citka zo'e} true here.
If you had to tell her that you want specifically the apple, you
normally wouldn't use {zo'e} -- this isn't a problem. The problem
would be when you used {zo'e} to mean "anything":
mi djica lo nu citka zo'e
How could your wife be sure that you meant
Any citka2 can make this bridi true.
and not
There is a citka2 that makes this bridi true.
Both interpretations would seem possible. And only the latter would
warrant a further question ("What citka2 are you talking about?").
> 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.
How would you respond if you meant anything, not the apple etc.?
mu'o