[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote: > xod: > > In general, in cases where the entities referred to by a da or lo is > known > > between the conversers, the terms are then +specific. This is easier to > > see with da than with lo. With da, we can keep refining down it's > meaning > > as the discussion progresses. With lo, it is useful for introductions > and > > abstract arguments, but if a referent is introduced with lo and made > > specific, it should probably be referred to with le later, because a > new > > lo could refer to another non-specific set again. (except for lo > bi'unai > > broda?) > > I think you are likely using o-gadri in a way rather distant from > their literal meaning, which is of course your Naturalistic duty... > > But I also wonder whether you have in mind a context like > "Once upon a time there was an old woodcutter. He ..." > For cases like this lo or da is appropriate, but it needs to > be before a zo'u plus tu'e (? I mean the marker for attitudinal > scope that scopes over multiple sentences). > So then you can say: da persists for a while. If da expired after a single bridi, there would have been no need for da'o. Plus, it would make it virtually useless. So da can be narrowed down with successive claims, whereas, I agree with you on the slipperiness of lo, in contrast. -- jipno se kerlo re mei re mei degji kakne