From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Nov 14 17:38:24 1994
Message-Id: <199411142238.AA13795@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Mon Nov 14 17:38:24 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: lo, da poi
Status: RO

la djer cusku di'e

> I continue to believe that "da poi" is not a substitute fo "lo" in all
> contexts.

You're right about that. The claim is that {da poi broda} is a substitute
for {lo broda}. {da poi} and {lo} have different grammars, so in no way
can one substitute the other.

> Here is another illustration:
>
> 1). re lo ci gerku cu blabi
> Exactly three dogs exist, two are white.
>
> 2). re da poi ci gerku cu blabi         (putting da poi for lo)

These are certainly not equivalent. You can't just replace {lo}
with {da poi}.

The second one means: "Two things which three dogs are white" and is just
a sumti, not a complete sentence. Since {blabi} has only one place,
being filled by the sumti {ci gerku}, there's no place left for {ke'a}
in the restrictive clause {ci gerku cu blabi}.

{lo} and {da poi} are not equivalent.

{lo broda} = {lo ro broda} = {su'o broda} = {su'o lo ro broda} means the
same as {da poi broda}, which doesn't mean that you can just substitute
one for the other. {da poi broda ko'a} is not the same as {lo broda ko'a},
but rather it is {lo broda be ko'a}.

Jorge