From a.rosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Aug 26 07:10:00 1999
X-Digest-Num: 222
Message-ID: <44114.222.1221.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:10:00 +0100
From: A Rosta <a.rosta@uclan.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Anselmisms and gadro
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1221

> From: mark@kli.org
> >
> >veridical & nonspecific:     da poi    [= lo]
> >veridical & specific:        ko'a poi
> >nonveridical & specific:     ko'a voi  [= le]
> >
> >More generally, {da} (& co.) gives you nonspecifics, {ko'a}
> >(& co.) gives you specifics, and {voi} gives you the means to
> >make nonveridical descriptions.
>
> But {ko'a} isn't specific in the same way "the" is.  {ko'a} is a bound
> pronoun, referring to something in particular that must have been
defined
> already.

I think that's only one use of {ko'a}; that is, not all {ko'a}s need be
bound
in a goi phrase. They're very much like English it/him/her/them.

> "The book" (one which I have in mind, as opposed to just any old
> book) is not a "ko'a" yet; I haven't defined it with enough detail and
I
> haven't bound it to the variable.  And while I can see that it could
be
> argued that since it's one I have in mind, it's covered by {le}, I
still
> feel there's some difference.  I know that {bi'u} was introduced to
help
> answer this problem partly.

I'm not sure I understand you, but perhaps you are supposing that {ko'a}
guarantees the recoverability of the referent by the addressee. If so, I
don't think this is the case.

 --And.