Re: TECH: And's question re anaphora

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

From: John Cowan <cowan@com.thyrsus.snark>
> Subject:     Re: TECH: And's question re anaphora

> la kolin. cusku di'e
>
> > One of the most common uses [of "go'i"] is
> > le go'i = 'the x1 of the previous bridi' which in my opinion only works
> > because of the subjectivity of 'le'.
>
> Why so?  Since "go'i", as you rightly state, carries the entire previous
> bridi with it, including its sumti, then "lo go'i" would be veridically
> "something-which-is-in-the-x1-place-of [insert previous bridi here]".

It's a matter of intension versus extension (and maybe quantification. If I say

        le broda cu brode

then

        lo go'i

means

        lo brode

Just because I have asserted that

        le broda cu brode

does not mean that

        lo brode cu broda

still less that it is the particular broda that I meant in the previous
sentence.

I accept you can get away with this with le, but I don't think it works
for lo.

        Colin