RE: [jboske] specificity of da (was: kau)

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> xod:
> > In general, in cases where the entities referred to by a da or lo is
> known
> > between the conversers, the terms are then +specific. This is easier to
> > see with da than with lo. With da, we can keep refining down it's
> meaning
> > as the discussion progresses. With lo, it is useful for introductions
> and
> > abstract arguments, but if a referent is introduced with lo and made
> > specific, it should probably be referred to with le later, because a
> new
> > lo could refer to another non-specific set again. (except for lo
> bi'unai
> > broda?)
>
> I think you are likely using o-gadri in a way rather distant from
> their literal meaning, which is of course your Naturalistic duty...
>
> But I also wonder whether you have in mind a context like
> "Once upon a time there was an old woodcutter. He ..."
> For cases like this lo or da is appropriate, but it needs to
> be before a zo'u plus tu'e (? I mean the marker for attitudinal
> scope that scopes over multiple sentences).
> So then you can say:



da persists for a while. If da expired after a single bridi, there would
have been no need for da'o. Plus, it would make it virtually useless. So
da can be narrowed down with successive claims, whereas, I agree with you
on the slipperiness of lo, in contrast.



-- 
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne