[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > --- 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? The point is to give it its meaning using position rather than explicitness, just like is done with da sometimes. Your question should be: why not just use da? -- The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...