[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > > {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"?
>
> The former. If it were up to me to decide, {ko'a} would always
> be a singular term. It could mean "they're dogs", but with a
> singular term "they"
Yes, that would keep things more straightforward. It surely is
up to the BF to decide, and your views are particularly valuable
because you've thought about these issues far more than anybody
else.
> >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
>
> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I haven't
> felt much need for it but then I don't use ko'a much at all
How do *you* do the equivalent of an unbound "he/she/it"?
--And.