Re: TECH: The meaning of existence

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK writes, about "lo plise":
> The second version makes it much clearer that what I'm interested
> in is that there should be such an apple, irrespective of which one.

May I suggest to add this aspect to the definition of "lo"?  In other
words, the referent of "lo plise" is at least one item which really is
an apple, but the speaker doesn't care which one.  It can easily be
argued that the "da poi plise" interpretation of "lo plise" implies
that the speaker doesn't care because there's no caring restriction on
"da poi plise", but confusion is common enough to make it worthwhile to
put the caveat in the definition explicitly.

As with other articles, if "at least one" is inappropriate you can put
on an explicit quantifier.

                -- jimc