[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] specificity of da (was: kau)



On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 07:09:59PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > 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
> [...]
>
> Well; let's take english, where there's a *right* answer which is
> (at least moreso) undeniable.  If I say
> 	A head of mine is small.
> or
> 	One of my heads is small.
> it suggests that I have more than one head.  This shows that
> regardless of what is true on the issue of le vs lo, your argument
> that "The fact that we're talking about human heads makes it always
> +specific" is bogus.


I don't buy your argument from English because "a head" and "my head" and
"the head" all have the same veridicality.

I agree that "one of my heads" does imply I have more than one, in
English, but I can't agree with you that "lo broda" should never be used
for cases where only one broda exists.



-- 
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne