[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:23:07AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> xorxes:
> > la xod cusku di'e
> > >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} is fine as far as I can tell. It mean's "it's a dog"
> > {ko'a} has a referent that the speaker knows.
>
> Does it mean "it's a dog" or "each of it/them is a dog"?
>
> I'm in two minds about whether unbound ko'a is licit. We could
> do without it, by using {le du (goi ko'a)} as you yourself
> once pointed out to me. I can't think of any obvious cons to
> unbound ko'a except that in careful usage there might be so
> many bound ko'a floating around that it might be confusing to
> the reader.
It is certainly licit, in my view. However, unless there's a good
reason for it it is questionable style.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bin4qlCShQKr_.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped