On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:51 AM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de= > wrote:

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:46:49AM -0800, la gleki wrote:=
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:24:47 PM UTC+4, v4hn wrote:

> > "the not-newly-introduced thing that= brodas" can still refer to any number
> > of different individuals /in the universe of discourse/, not just= the one
> > you're talking about in this specific sentence. {lo bi'u = nai} has its
> > uses, but that's not one of them in my opinion.
> >
>
> Yes, but given that there is only one such object in the previous disc= ourse
> =A0this {bi'unai} refers only to it.
>

I just wanted to point out that this is no general solution.

> > Did you read the last discussion on that? No it does not fix &quo= t;any",
> > whatever this is supposed to mean.
> >
>
> {lo} does =A0refer to "any" objects. But this range can be n= arrowed down to
> an appropriate interval mostly by using UI, VA etc.

Yes, {lo broda} _refers_ to any object that brodas, but it does not share the _intensional meaning_ of "any object that brodas"!
{lo broda} refers to specific individuals /in the universe of discourse/

No it doesn't. {lo} is the generic article. It c= annot be specific, period.
=A0

(it might introduce them first). On the other hand "any {broda}" = does
not necessarily do that(normally it doesn't). You can say "Any app= le is sufficient."
or "Give me any apple" without necessarily refering to a specific= apple in the UD
or introducing one(John and I have different opinions on the introducing pa= rt as far
as I can see).

That's part of the current state of discussion on the "any" m= atter.
You're welcome to discuss this in the appropriate thread.

> > If you don't like these, {le} is the best choice you have in = my opinion
> > as it is rather close to at least the latter one. (if you think K= OhAs do
> > not need to get defined with {goi} also to KOhA)
> > I really don't understand this whole movement that tries to p= rohibit {le}.
>
> Probably because {le} has shown clear polysemy.
> It was used for things like {le cribe} for teddy-bears as opposed to {= lo
> cribe} which were supposed to be Ursidae mammals.
> That's why selpa'i proposed moving {voi} to UI to have a cmavo= for
> "described objects".
> We can free {le} from this extraneous meaning. And ok, I'll use it= .

Please elaborate on that (maybe in a new thread).
I don't see any polysemy and I don't see any reason
to move {voi} to UI and I don't know what this would/is supposed to fix= .
Also I have the feeling you either didn't understand the last part of m= y mail
or you ignored it.

By the way: After xorlo {lo cribe} _can_, given a context, refer to a teddy= -bear,
can't it?

Before xorlo as well.
=A0

> But if {le} refers to apples that one has in mind who is that "on= e" who has
> them in mind? Is it the speaker? Then it sounds like an attitudinal.

/WHAT/? What kind of reasoning is that? If anything that is related t= o the
speaker should be UI, then why is {mi} a KOhA and not UI as well polemic-te= rminator.

> And next. If {le} refers to things that I have in mind why should we > suppose that this thing has been previously mentioned?

We don't. The first {lo broda} could in principle also be {le bro= da} if you
don't want to assert at all, that the object you're refering to act= ually
brodas. If you want to do that, you have to use {lo} at least once
or need to say something like {le broda ku broda}.
{le} fixes reference, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever {brivla}
comes after is used to inform the listener/reader on who/what is the refere= nt.

> In this case we have to say {le bi'unai} anyway which will save no=
> syllables although may be indeed more precise in meaning.

Normally you don't need to be this precise, but if you want to be= ... sure.

v4hn