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


> > 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.

My problem with this is how you would get the opposition:

     do ba speni lo me luha le/lei/lehi zabna
     do ba speni le me luha le/lei/lehi zabna

the 2nd one means you're going to marry a particular one of those
particular zabnas.

And if you were right, wouldn't "lo" always be replaceable by
"suho (or whatever) le [ro] broda"?