DISCLAIMER: The following is highly subjective and
should probably not be taken too serious.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:23:44PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> Am 28.08.2012 22:19, schrieb v4hn:
> >Why should people stop to use {le} if it literally means "the
> >thing you have in mind".. mu'o
>
> Because it doesn't mean that any more than "lo" does. Both are
> defined in terms of "zo'e", so "lo" is just as specific as "le", and
> "le" can be just as vague as "lo". There isn't anything that "le"
> does that "lo" cannot do.
You know, there's a term for your usage of the {lo} in german.
It's "eierlegende Wollmilchsau".
If you read more of the gadri proposal than just the formal
definitions, then you find that {lo} is described as "generic article"
whereas {le} gets quite a bit of attention as well and is described as
"specific article". This proposal does not make any "specific" usage of
{le} deprecated as far as I can see.
The distinction made in the proposal looks to me like
the core of the "any" vs "specific ones" discussion.
You're right in that this generic/specific distinction does not
seem to exist in the given formal definitions.
Is this intensional? What's the point in describing in two pages
two different concepts for {le} and {lo} if you afterwards define
both in terms of {zo'e} without mentioning the generic/specific distinction?
mu'o mi'e la .van.
Attachment:
pgp6b9KnScgSv.pgp
Description: PGP signature