From araizen@newmail.net Mon Jul 21 08:27:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 8105 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 15:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m19.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2003 15:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 15:27:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19ecZu-0007gs-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:27:54 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ecZc-0007gV-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:27:36 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.21]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ecZS-0007gK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:27:26 -0700 Received: from default ([62.0.115.147]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HID00FI9S778A@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:27:22 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:27:26 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0HID00FIIS818A@mxout2.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5936 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@newmail.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@newmail.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20418 de'i li 2003-07-21 ti'u li 09:16:00 la'o zoi. adam .zoi cusku di'e >On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, And Rosta wrote: > >> Translate English "They went." I can see two ways: >> >> 1. ko'a klama >> 2. le du cu klama >> >> Neither uses anaphora, and I cannot see any way of using anaphora. > >Who went? "They" is anaphora, it's only meaningful in English when we've >already been talking about some group. And if that's the case, there's nothing >wrong with ra. That's not necessarily true at all. You can tell the referrent of English pronouns by pointing them out implicitly or explicitly, or the referrent may rely on knowledge shared by the speaker and the listener, or on general knowledge. > I'm also curious why you couldn't translate "They went." as >3. klama > >which doesn't tell us a thing about who went, but neither does unbound ko'a. >If you're going to have to glork who ko'a is, then why don't you just use zo'e >the way it's intended? "klama" and "ko'a klama" by themselves are similar, except that with "ko'a klama" the speaker necessarily has something in mind, whereas he may or may not have something in mind with "klama"; however, the ko'a version allows using ko'a later on to unambiguously refer to the same thing, and ko'a can take relative phrases, i.e., something like "ko'a poi nanmu cu klama". mu'o mi'e .adam.