On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 09:22:41PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Fine, whatever. Whether or not I'm wrong about the equivalence of {pa
> plise} and {pa lo plise}, my statement that {pa plise} suffices for "any
> apple" is still valid.
I'm sorry, but I can't see how it could.
If {pa plise} means "exactly one apple", then how does this _exclude_
that you know which apple you are talking about?
I really like the proposed phrase {ko dunda da poi plise ku'o mi}.
Syntactically it does not really state that I don't know/care which thing I'm talking
about the same way "any", "irgendein", etc. do it, but due to pragmatics it seems to work out.
At least I can't construct a reading which involves me wanting a specific apple.
In such a situation uttering this phrase seems inappropriate to me.
Any opinions?
v4hn
Attachment:
pgp7mDPCXzOek.pgp
Description: PGP signature