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

Re: TECH: specifity & definiteness

John Cowan writes:
> Again, with feeling:
> Remember that although we loosely refer to LE cmavo as articles, they are
> really more like pronoun+relatives:  "lo kanba" is not "a goat" but
> "that-which-really is-a-goat", because "kanba" is a stative verb, not a noun.

Hear, hear!  In typical conversation one introduces a sumti referent
using "really-is" determiners like {lo} plus enough context, specified
description and restrictive  clauses to let the listener know which
referent it is.  Subsequently, one refers to the same referent using
{le} and the main selbri from the original sumti.  Example:

        mi kurji >lo< kanba             I take care of a goat (introduction)
        .i >le< kanba cu se tugle lo te vomei
                                        The goat (same one) has four legs

The effect is very similar to using a pronoun:

        .i ri se tugle lo te vomei      It has four legs

If you pull out a {le} sumti cold, as when saying:

        le djatru fa kurji              The Lord will provide

you take a big chance with being understood; for example a Hindu might
say "Come on, sahr, you're being frightfully culture-centric to expect
me to know who your theocrat is!"  Thus I think that it's not too
productive to pick on details of how you can expect the listener
to interpret a creatively constructed {le} sumti -- you get what
you deserve!

                -- jimc