On Jan 28, 2013 6:50 AM, "v4hn" <me@v4hn.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
UD or IRL, it amounts to the same thing. When you say {lo mlatu}, you aren't talking about anything specific. It is the generic article because it is /generic/.
{lo mlatu} means "one or more things which actually are a cat". The only way that becomes a reference to a specific thing is if context (or the UD, if you prefer,) limits the reference to a specific referent.
I'm going to assume that when you say specific, you don't mean what I do when I say specific, because otherwise you're just not making any sense.
When I say "specific", I mean "a particular instance of X, wherein X is the subject of discussion, such as 'cats'."
> 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