[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:19:13AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > [...] > > 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. > > Huh? da'o is for ko'a and broda and such things. "da" is not like > normal pro-sumti, it's got completely different uses and purposes. > > The binding "da", according to the book, must end at the end of a > sentence. The book has a provision which says that in "informal > speech" or something the rule is more fuzzy, and a da might be > able to last for another bridi or two. But I think this rule > sucks, and it's highly confusing when people try to use it (which > i've never seen). If it can extend to two bridi consecutively, it can keep on extending for more. Inasmuch as that can be done, then... -- jipno se kerlo re mei re mei degji kakne