[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi

And asks about his scurrilous example
 Perhaps if it is the case that
  do ba speni lo dotco "You will marry some German or other"
but not
  do ba speni le dotco "You will marry a certain German"
And you also want to (in the spirit of your example) equate
Germany with Sodom, then there is quandary about the choice
  do ba speni lo ganxygletu
  do ba speni le ganxygletu  [gismu from memory - may be wrong]
nn the one hand, I don't know who it is you will marry - all
I know is that they'll be German: so lo ganxygletu is preferable.
On the other hand, lo ganxygletu excludes Germans who aren't
ganxygletu, which is not what I want: there's no guarantee your
spouse will be a ganxygletu, but there is a gurantee they'll
be German. So le ganxygletu is preferable.

 I guess you, John & Lojbab would definitely use "le ganxygletu"
here, but I wonder what Colin thinks, since he has been taking
the same line as me so far.

Took me several tries to see what this was about, but I at
last get that there is a problem. The problem is I think in the
definition of 'le', which ASSUMES that if you are using a
non-veridical description, there must be a specific target
individual or group that you intend: this example may be
a counter example.
On the other hand it may be that this does still work - that
the specific collection of individuals you are describing as
ganxygletu is in fact ro dotpre - which seemed a non-specific
collection when we though of the first example.

Hm.  More thought needed.