RE: [jboske] kau

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la xod cusku di'e

> > But ko'a has a fixed referent. Consider for example:
> > {ro da pu jdice le du'u makau ba kansa da le nu dansu},
> > "everybody decided who would accompany them to the dance".
> > There is no fixed value ko'a that will serve for everyone
> > there. If we use {ko'a} we'd be saying that everyone decided
> > to go with the same person.
>
> This makes sense with ko'a, but why are the quantifications of makau and
> ko'a different?
>
> But even with this caveat, da can take its meaning from position or from
> specification with poi; I see no elegant reason why ko'a can't have the
> same flexibility. The only inherent difference I see between da and ko'a
> is the assertion of existence.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that {da} can take its
meaning from position. {da} is always a bound variable, and
its binding is restricted to the bridi whose prenex contains
the (overt or implicit) quantification.

{ko'a}'s working is more obscure, but normally it gets assigned
one value for the whole text or at least for a whole chunk of
text, and it does not take values over a quantified set. It
could also be used for that, but it would take special marking.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus