[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod: > 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.. da can continue for as long as it is within the scope of the quantifier that binds it, and no longer. Quantifier scope is defined syntactically in Lojban. So there should be no doubt about how long da can continue -- at least in logically scrupulous usage. --And.