[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
kreig: > >> > Craig scripsit: > >> > I first thought of "ko'a simlu ma", but "ko'a selski fo ma" would be > >> be careful about "ko'a" - it's very tempting to use it to translate > >> he/she/it, and this is _wrong_. "ko'a" should be one of the rarer > >> pro-sumti, since you would only use it if you felt it useful to > >> specifically assign a pro-sumti to a person or thing. Given that you're > >> writing a story KO'A may be appropriate, but I've seen too many cases > >> where people use "ko'a" when they really want "ti" or "ri". > > >If you or anyone else is convinced of this, then it should go to the > >BF for consideration, since AFAIK the prescription does not preclude > >unbound ko'a (i.e. = he/she/it), & it has often been used as such -- > >quite sensibly, though nowadays I tend to prefer "le du". > > unbound ko'a is grammatical, of course. It's just meaningless. Until a > ko'a-series is bound, it has no referent. That is the question. Does unbound ko'a take a referent glorked from context, or does it produce meaningless sentences. What are the arguments for one view or the other? > >(Isn't it lovely that we can nowadays just say "Take it to the BF", instead > >of having furious debates on the list!) > > Not at all. The furious debates ought to happen - though maybe on jboske - > so that those who have not made the time commitment to be bpfk members get > their input, and *then* it ought to be taken to the bpfk, where the members > ought to listen to the wider community. Not that we'll really pay attention > or anything... righto