WikiDiscuss

---

(lo/le ctuca cu fatri lo/le selctu mu lo vo tadni)
> 4: I don't think that a teacher reading it for guidance has anydoubt who the
> writer has in mind: the teacher reading this copy for guidance. The casual
> reader doesn't either: the teacher who is using the guidelines in an actual
> situation. This is a perhaps metaphorical sense of in mind

Yes. Is {le} supposed to be used in this metaphorical sense?
I have often been in doubt about this. Is it always for things
that are identified by the speaker, or can it be used for things
that are not identified by the speaker but which would be
identifiable by someone taking part in the (hypothetical)
situation being described?

Example:

Get two boxes of different sizes and put the smaller one
inside the bigger one.

Can we use {le} for "the bigger one" and "the smaller one" even
though there are no actual objects that the speaker has in mind?
He doesn't even know if the first part of the command will be
fulfilled, so at this point the two boxes are hypothetical.
Can he refer to them with {le}?

> 5: But number may not be irrelevant here, one is quite capable of being
> interested in reporting a smear of two-dogs on the highway. I forget all the
> proposals and all the cases for and against; I just note this has been a
> problem over the years, so let's fix it, The {rectu} only works for the
> (mainly) edible parts of critters, not for goo.

For two dog smear we can use {lo tu'o lo re gerku}.

> 6:Does {claxu} assert not having, or does it just imply it?
> 6: Asserts.

So you would say:

mi claxu roda
= mi na ponse roda
= su'oda naku zo'u mi ponse da

mi claxu su'oda
= mi na ponse su'oda
= noda zo'u mi ponse da

"I lack everything" = "There's something I don't have"?
"I lack something" = "There's nothing that I have"?

It doesn't seem right. With claxu = narponse, i.e. shortest
scope negation, it works much better.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/