coi rodo
.i mi na'e pu sisti lonu pensi lonu ma'a pilno zo le .e zo lo kei .e
loi preti poi pu se cusku mi gi'e se sitna
.i xu ma'a ba'e na nitcu loi cmavo be zo le bei lonu ka'e jarco
lodu'u lo cusku ku pensi lo se steci gi'ikau na'e pensi lo se steci
mu'o mi'e la .van.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:33:39AM +0200, v4hn wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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:
pgppZNC9qVWGN.pgp
Description: PGP signature