Re: [lojban] Re: The Any thread

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:09:38PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Craig wrote:
> [...]
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/1087 (14 dec 2002)
> >
> > me:
> > > It doesn't require it, but it doesn't forbid it either, and da is often
> > > used to refer to specific entities that the speaker has in mind, and of
> > > which the speaker wants to assert the existence, and wants to assign a
> > > variable.
> >
> > Jordan:
> > This is what is confusing you: You *can't* use da to refer to something
> > specific.
>
> You think 'specific' means something else.  Read the other message
> I sent about that (in the subthread with rlp).


What's the yahoo message number? Otherwise I'll never be able to locate
it.


> You can use 'da' to refer to something which you "have in mind",
> or know the identity of.  But the reference is a nonspecific
> reference.  It simply asserts the existence of some individual.

>
> "You can't use da to refer to something specifically" is a better
> way to put it.


OK, so you're back to da meaning anything. It can't be both ways! I said
"in mind", and you said no. I say "not in mind" and you still argue.



-- 
What would Jesus bomb?