Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And:
> > > It has been established (to my satisfaction, at any rate)
> > > that LE/LO is +/-specific [Colin propounded this most lucidly].
> > > It only relates to definiteness in
> > > that only +specifics can be +/-definite.
> >
> > Could you explain what is definiteness in this context, please.
>
> Oversimplifying a bit, it means that the addressee is able to
> identify the referent (without asking 'which?').
> Compare:
>    I bought a book.
>    Which book?
> - normal
>    I bought the book.
>    Which book?
> - which is not normal, & implies a failure in communication.

Great!

I would add that -specific (lo) is always -definite, and that
"which one?" always makes sense in such case (which is not to say
that the speaker has to know the answer).

So the meaning of "ko'a nitcu lo tanxe" is the one for which the
question "which one?" makes sense. (Unless nitcu accepts
abstractions only, in which case the problem doesn't arise.)

Jorge