[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
What we're discussing here is degrees of definite knowledge about the referenced object on the part of the speaker and the listener. "te": speaker knows, listener knows "da": speaker knows, listener doesn't know "ki": speaker doesn't know, listener doesn't know "sao": speaker knows, listener presumably knows "cai": ? speaker knows and names, listener might know Looked at this way, "te", "da", and "ki" seem to form a continuum. In English we sometimes replace the article with 'this' when we have the "da" meaning in mind: 'I'm going to marry this Swede.' It does seem a useful distinction. I don't know about "sao", though. To me it doesn't seem so important whether the known thing is known because I just identified it or because it's assumed as already identified through common experience. If this distinction is made, then it seems that all the others in Garrett's initial list ought to be made as well. > You don't mean a typical, or representative Swede here, > do you? You could mean, say, that you're going to marry a Swede to > get > Swedish citizenship, say, and you don't need a typical one, you > need -any- one. I don't follow, Rex. Does one of Garrett's articles convey typicalness? And what is the distinction? --Krawn