Keelefilosoofia raamat
cerned," for that paraphrase misses the fact that the original "It" referred to
the particular rabbit that appeared in the yard.
Russell may fairly rejoin that what he offered was a theory of definite
descriptions, and neither (16) nor (17) contains a definite description. But
if the "It"s in (16) and (17) are not pronouns of laziness, why should we
think that "He" in (15) is one? Also, definite descriptions can themselves be
anaphors:
(18) Just one turtle came down the street. The turtle was running
as if it were being pursued by a maniac.
(19) A rabbit appeared in our yard after dinner. The rabbit seemed
unconcerned.
It is plausible enough to take "The turtle" in (18) as abbreviating "The
turtle that came down the street," in which case (18) does not threaten
Russell's analysis. But the same will not do for (19): if we try to suppose that
annaabi.ee 
