On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:21:33AM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:51 AM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
> > Yes, {lo broda} _refers_ to any object that brodas, but it does not
> > share the _intensional meaning_ of "any object that brodas"!
> > {lo broda} refers to specific individuals /in the universe of discourse/
> >
>
> No it doesn't. {lo} is the generic article. It cannot be specific, period.
If it doesn't refer to(and maybe introduce) a specific element _in the universe
of discourse_(I'm not talking about the actual world) then there would be no
way you could reference that same element later on. Not even by KOhA/BY.
Because then, there would not _be_ anything you could refer to. period.
You're welcome to explain yourself in more than one sentence and with
at least one example.
I still think some people should write a paper on usage and meaning of
{le} and {lo}, so we would have something specific to discuss instead of
listening over and over again to the same arguments until one side goes
to sleep...
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpzUmQ5qKDpK.pgp
Description: PGP signature