Re: BPFK Section: gadri
This is actually by PC:
On {lo}
<< mi nitcu lo lanme i ko pirfi'i lo lanme seva'u mi
What I need is a sheep. Draw me a sheep.
mi djica lo lanme poi ba ze'u jmive
I want a sheep that will live a long time.>>
Even if {nitcu} and {djica} are in play yet again (are they?), it is hardly informative to use these examples, since they one of are wrong, prejudge a controversial issue, or need some explanation for folks who know how the corresponding words work in English (or just know about the paradoxes resulting from them as level with other contexts).
la
Name article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, or a cmevla into a sumti. The resulting expression refers specifically to an individual or group that the speaker has in mind and which the speaker names with the selbri or cmevla. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group. An inner quantifier can be used in the case of a selbri to indicate the cardinality of the group.
Can we fit a quantifier between {la} and the cmevla/selbri without getting the name wrong? How?
<
Typical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the typical individual or group that satisfies the predicate. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the typical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.
le'e
Stereotypical article. It converts a selbri, selecting its first argument, into a sumti. The resulting expression refers to the stereotypical individual or group that is described by the predicate, from the point of view of the speaker. An outer quantifier can be used to quantify over instances of the stereotypical individual or group. An inner quantifier can be used to indicate the cardinality of the group.
>>
I am unsure just what to make of enumerating typical and stereotypical whatsises. The pattern seems to call for it, but in the cases where plurality plays a role, it seems to me that the typicality (etc.) is predicative not descriptive. That is you really want such things not just using the locution to talk in generalities about whatsises � whether or not they exist.
The treatment of quantifiers seems to me to be the sensible one and gets rid of 30 years of bootless disputes.
The examples in {lo}, combined with the dismissal of the {lo} = {so�u} equation (which probably should fade a bit) leaves {lo} ultimately unintelligible, if not contradictory.
pc