[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- John Cowan <cowan@hidden.email> wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > That is the question. Does unbound ko'a take a referent glorked from > > context, or does it produce meaningless sentences. > > The traditional view is that the referent is glorked, and I see no reason > to change this. People who don't like using ko'a that way shouldn't use it. > There are many, many other forms (le-descriptors being the obvious one) > whose referents must be glorked, after all. Perhaps the reason for being unconfortable with unbound ko'a is its rarity in usage. There are usually so many more precise alternatives that using unbound ko'a is almost equivalent to using nothing/zo'e. In fact, is there a difference between zo'e and a single instance of unbound ko'a? Does unbound ko'a need to refer to something already mentioned? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com