From araizen@newmail.net Mon Jul 21 08:09:24 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 53863 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 15:09:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2003 15:09:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 15:09:24 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
	id 19ecI0-0007VU-00
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:09:24 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19ecHj-0007V8-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:09:07 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.21])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19ecHa-0007Uw-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:08:58 -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 <0HID00FNTRC34O@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for
 lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:08:49 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:08:49 +0200
Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a
To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Message-id: <0HID00FOBRD04O@mxout2.netvision.net.il>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 5935
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 <araizen@newmail.net>
Reply-To: araizen@newmail.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669
X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20417

de'i li 2003-07-21 ti'u li 08:42:00 la'o zoi. Jordan DeLong .zoi cusku di'e

>> That's not the argument. The argument is that it is grammatical, it has
>> an obvious meaning, and it is useful. Not every sumti place has to be
>
>But I reject that it is useful, since you can get the same use with
>less syllables using existing anaphora.

The thing that you want to talk about was not necessarily already referred
to. If it wasn't then your only other option (other than 'le du') is 
'zo'e', but 'zo'e' is not necessarily specific. Also, if you want to
refer to the same thing again, using 'ko'a' implicitly binds ko'a to it.

mu'o mi'e .adam.