Look at the "any" discussion, as it's the same idea. {lo crino} can very well have only one referent, even if there are many green things in the UD. It
shouldn't have only one referent, if the distinction matters to you as the speaker; that's (part of?) what {le} is for. But it can anyway. This means you can't say "I'm looking for a green thing" and be absolutely certain that your listener knows you don't care which one (without a separate bridi).
mi'e la latro'a mu'o
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:44 AM, v4hn
<me@v4hn.de> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:10:28AM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote:
> Because {lo crino} can very well mean "that blade of grass over there".
What's the problem here? If you're just looking for something green
and your universe of discourse includes blades of grass, then this is
perfectly valid.
> It's not specific either way, and unlike with definiteness there isn't a
> way to add quantifiers or anything to make it so.
I don't get the rest.. If you are looking for a green shirt
and your UD includes more things than shirts, you can always say
{mi sisku lo crino creka}
v4hn