[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:27:43PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:27:56PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > > Jordan: > [...] > > > > > I disagree. o-gadri are out, regardless of the membership of lo'i > > > > > stedu be mi, because I am talking about a specific thing. > > > > > > > > Certainly if you intend to refer to a +specific thing, i.e. something > > > > involving le'i, then o-gadri are out. But one can speak of someone's > > > > head without referring to it > > > > > > We're talking about refering to it. One ought not to make claims > > > about their head without refering to it. Claims without refering > > > to it should be limited to claims of its existence > > > > I think we need to concretize which expressions we agree count as > > referring, and which are permissible in talking about someone's head. > > > > As things stand, I cannot see why one ought not to make claims about > > someone's head without using a +specific or LA gadri or ko'a-series > > KOhA, which is how I would tend to interpret the term 'referring > > expression'. > > Because stuff like > lo stedu be mi cu cmalymau lo'e plini > suggests I have multiple heads. Not to me. These words have meanings, they are not arbitrary algebraic symbols. If a human being mentions his head, I will assume that he's discussing his one and only head. Only the worst, uncooperative interpretation would do otherwise. lo and le are not only distinct by +/-specific, but by +/-veridical as well, so, by selecting lo, the speaker could be referring to either distinction. Given that heads are indeed specific, the distinction offered is that of +veridical. This is, of course, with the assumption that le is the default gadri, making the use of any other gadri a signalling action that needs justification -- an assumption that could be questioned. In general, in cases where the entities referred to by a da or lo is known between the conversers, the terms are then +specific. This is easier to see with da than with lo. With da, we can keep refining down it's meaning as the discussion progresses. With lo, it is useful for introductions and abstract arguments, but if a referent is introduced with lo and made specific, it should probably be referred to with le later, because a new lo could refer to another non-specific set again. (except for lo bi'unai broda?) -- jipno se kerlo re mei re mei degji kakne