[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 11:33:58AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:43:29AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > [...] > > > 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 > > Yup. It isn't. In fact it suggests to the listener that you may > own more than one dog > > It's like if I were to say "lo stedu be mi" instead of "le stedu > be mi" As you know, if I am guided by meaning rather than usage then "le stedu be mi", "each of (a) certain head(s) of mine", also implies you have more than one head, else why the need for universal quantification, and why the need for specificity -- that is, why the need to invoke a particular le'i stedu be mi, when you are in fact talking about the membership of lo'i stedu be mi? Presumably you do agree that "da stedu mi", "something is my head", is also more natural than "ko'a stedu mi", "le du cu stedu mi", "it is my head". > > > (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 > > I don't see what you're complaining about... Without checking the book, I am guessing that the objection to your use of ti is based on mabla anti-malglico tradition -- in this instance, the notion that ti with a textual referent is insufficiently deictic. --And.