On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Анатолий Гашев
<volishavas@gmail.com> wrote:
Using here {le nanmu} is not better and actually it might be wrong. Cuz it may be that I just now saw a woman, which I described as a man and I think the person is a man.
He/she has not any specific meaning for me at all that is why I called him/her {lo nanmu}, but not {le ninmu}.
Please, everybody, read xorlo-update already cuz the {lo}-meaning has changed dramatically since CLL, which is dated by 1997.
Lookup the meaning of the word "veridical". {lo} is and /always has been/ veridical- it must and can only be used for things which /actually are/ what you're describing them as. {le} is and /always has been/ non-veridical.
xorlo did not change the meaning of {lo} or {le}, it just changed how quantification works.
воскресенье, 23 июня 2013 г., 18:18:40 UTC+6 пользователь v4hn написал:
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:21:50AM -0700, Анатолий Гашев wrote:
> I may call a woman with {lo nanmu} if I think the person is a man.
> You can ask about that almost anybody, especially la tsani or la selpa'i.
> And they can say am I right or not.
Yes, you can do that. Obviously. How else would you describe someone
who seems to be a man?
Nevertheless, you say something ba'e wrong then.
Using {le nanmu} (which in my opinion is better style anyway when you
have someone specific in mind) you do not, because you refer to
a specific individual no matter the description.
v4hn