Re: wff, lo broda...le broda

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> > Someone (Iain?) said that
> > {le broda} will mean the at least one broda that satisfied whatever
> > was claimed for {lo broda}, but this is not very clear to me.
>
> It's an interpretation rule for a bare "le broda" in an environment
> where no "le broda" has appeared before.

Yes, that's how "a" and "the" work in English. I thought that was the
main reason why {lo}/{le} were not like "a"/"the", because even for
first mention you'd have to use {le}, but this interpretation seems
to allow for the same convention of English.

> If there has been some previous
> "da" restricted to be "poi broda", then suppose that "le broda" is another
> way of saying this "da".  More specifically, since (on your view)
> "lo broda" = "DA poi broda" for some anonymous DA, "le broda" provides a
> handle on this variable.

I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying that from that to saying that
{le} = "the", {lo} = "a/some", there is a very small step.


> Note that once a da-series variable, real or hidden, has been bound, further
> uses of it are +specific:
>
>         da poi nolraitru cu cusku zo broda .i da cusku zo brode

Is there any rule for how long the binding lasts, or is it left to context?

Jorge