[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >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.
Nobody complains about {da gerku}, da taking its meaning from its
position. But people complain about {ko'a gerku}, if ko'a wasn't already
specified, instead of relaxing and treating it the same way as da. {ko'a
gerku} could be the same as {ko'a goi X gerku}. (I'm using the X to avoid
fights over which gadri to use, and yes, I am well aware that the latter
lacks a selbri, too.)
Isn't this one of the oddities of Lojban?
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne