On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:43:54PM -0800, la gleki wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 9:07:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> This should be done with {bi'u nai} instead, if the explicitness is
> >> desired. It is somewhat of a shame that {lo bi'u nai} is as long as it is.
"the not-newly-introduced thing that brodas" can still refer to any number
of different individuals /in the universe of discourse/, not just the one
you're talking about in this specific sentence. {lo bi'u nai} has its
uses, but that's not one of them in my opinion.
> > I disagree. {le} is the specific article, he's referring to a specific
> > thing. This is the reason why {le} exists.
> >
>
> Even if so it has nothing to do with {bi'unai}. "specific thing" might
> solve the problem of "any"
Did you read the last discussion on that? No it does not fix "any",
whatever this is supposed to mean.
> but not the problem of the definite article in
> the meaning of referring to things previously mentioned.
That's exactly what KOhA and one letter abbreviations are for.
If you don't like these, {le} is the best choice you have in my opinion
as it is rather close to at least the latter one. (if you think KOhAs do
not need to get defined with {goi} also to KOhA)
I really don't understand this whole movement that tries to prohibit {le}.
For me, {le} is a realization of Keith Donnellan's purely referential use of
definite descriptions and it is perfectly justified in its existance.
You don't need to state each time you refer to an individual that he brodas
one way or the other. It's absolutely enough to state it ones in the beginning.
Sadly, this concept is not much used in NatLangs in my experience.
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpOocQd4mAVV.pgp
Description: PGP signature