On 30 May 2010 18:45, Daniel Brockman
<daniel@brockman.se> wrote:
Obviously we're never going to agree on whether {la} "removes" the
meaning from whatever comes after or if it "retains" the meaning.
I guess we actually can agree on one hand 1) that, in {la donri}, {la} may remove the place structure from {donri} so that {la donri} does not inherently/primarily mean "daytime" as in {lo donri}, and on the other hand 2) that those who are familiar with gismu {donri}'s place structure, may superficially associate {la donri} with the meaning of {lo donri}, which is "daytime", or with something else. In other words, {la donri} may have no inherent/primary meaning other than "that named 'donri'" but may have superficial/secondary meanings such as English "daytime" or Swedish "dag" or whatever people can associate with the string of letters {donri}.
Already, {la irc} is vague about whether spelling or pronunciation is important.
Well, the important thing is whether people can associate the right, intended meaning more with a certain string of letters than with other strings. If to people {irc} is generally more associative of "internet relay chat" (assuming that's the intended meaning) than {iburyc} is, then we should consider {irc} better than {iburyc} as the cmevla for "internet relay chat".