OP /the/ vs. /dhaN/ (fwd)

[Catherine Rudin/HU/AC/WSC]

John wrote:
"Well, I certainly agree that shifts in the inanimate articles are often
used to indicate number or, rather, configurational changes that amount to
number.  Dorsey also regularly speaks of =the as a former of collectives.
However, now that I've looked, it appears, contrary to what I might have
expected, that the texts suggest that with body parts this does not
normally occur.  I would hesitate to suggest it never occurs, and I would
also hesitate to guess what the implication would be when it did occur.
...
So, 'lower leg', singular or plural, is always =khe 'the horizontal',
...
So 'eye' is always dhaN, singular or plural.
...
Hands appear to always be =the, except for one case where disassociated,
possibly never associated, paws take =ge."
...

Hmm...  Does this look like lexicalization of the article to anyone else?
Maybe lexicalization isn't the right term ... I mean the tendency, which
has come up occasionally before in our discussions of the articles, for
certain words to always take the same article, regardless of
position/configuration (including stacks etc. for plural).  Perhaps the
articles are in the early stages of "fossilizing" -- losing their
configurational semantics and becoming something more like gender-class
markers?  I don't mean to suggest that this is widespread -- they clearly
indicate configuration in most cases.

Does anyone remember examples other than body parts?  It does make a
certain amount of sense for body parts to be on the cutting edge of a
change like this ...

On another issue... The "lower leg" seems to favor Rory's "elongate" over
"horizontal" for =khe.   Another example here might be "hair" which I think
(remembering off the top of my head, may well be wrong) is also always
=khe, and even on the windy plains, hair tends not to stand out horizontal.

Catherine