[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:43:29AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > > la xod cusku di'e
> [...]
> > > If the listener can't figure it out and needs to know, they may ask for
> > > clarification with {ko'a ki'a}. The same thing happens in English. If
> > > someone says "it's a dog" and you can't tell what "it" refers to, you
> > > ask "_what_ is a dog?". On the other hand, {da gerku}, "something is a
> > > dog", does not require the identification of any dog.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't require it, but it doesn't forbid it either, and da is often
> > used to refer to specific entities that the speaker has in mind, and of
> > which the speaker wants to assert the existence, and wants to assign a
> > variable.
>
> This is what is confusing you: You *can't* use da to refer to
> something specific.
We've had this discussion before, and it's where you said (da poi gerku
fi'o ponse mi) isn't specific, even if I only have one dog.
> (Any usage which does is incorrect, and should probably be using
> ti/ta/tu). The difference between da and ko'a is the same as between le
> and lo.
See chapter 7;3 to see why ti is unusable.
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne