[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la xod cusku di'e
> But ko'a has a fixed referent. Consider for example:
> {ro da pu jdice le du'u makau ba kansa da le nu dansu},
> "everybody decided who would accompany them to the dance".
> There is no fixed value ko'a that will serve for everyone
> there. If we use {ko'a} we'd be saying that everyone decided
> to go with the same person.
This makes sense with ko'a, but why are the quantifications of makau and
ko'a different?
But even with this caveat, da can take its meaning from position or from
specification with poi; I see no elegant reason why ko'a can't have the
same flexibility. The only inherent difference I see between da and ko'a
is the assertion of existence.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that {da} can take its
meaning from position. {da} is always a bound variable, and
its binding is restricted to the bridi whose prenex contains
the (overt or implicit) quantification.
{ko'a}'s working is more obscure, but normally it gets assigned
one value for the whole text or at least for a whole chunk of
text, and it does not take values over a quantified set. It
could also be used for that, but it would take special marking.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus