Re: TECH: LE & LO

[Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>]

la and. cusku di'e
> (ii) I think all Germans are zabna. So if I choose to call
> Germans zabna, should I say

>    do ba speni lo zabna
> or
>    do ba speni le zabna

> Neither is satisfactory. The problem with the first is that it
> would be true if you married someone zabna but not German.
> The second suggests that I have in mind who it is you will
> marry, which is not the case.

> The solution, I think, is:

>     do ba speni lo me luha le((h)i) zabna

Ugh!  I don't think you need to go quite this far. %~>

At least part of the _specific_ nature of {le broda} is due to
the default {ro} quantifier ({[ro] le [su'o [pa]] broda}).
I think all you need to do to talk about (a) non-specific
individual(s) is to add an explicit quantifier.

    do ba speni su'o le zabna

The {su'o} could of course be other things such as {pa}, depending
on exactly what you wanted to say.  {le zabna} remains the (specific)
group that you have in mind as being described as {zabna}, but now
your selecting from that group.

co'o mi'e .i,n.