On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:43:29AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > la xod cusku di'e
[...]
> > If the listener can't figure it out and needs to know, they may ask for
> > clarification with {ko'a ki'a}. The same thing happens in English. If
> > someone says "it's a dog" and you can't tell what "it" refers to, you
> > ask "_what_ is a dog?". On the other hand, {da gerku}, "something is a
> > dog", does not require the identification of any dog.
>
>
> It doesn't require it, but it doesn't forbid it either, and da is often
> used to refer to specific entities that the speaker has in mind, and of
> which the speaker wants to assert the existence, and wants to assign a
> variable.
This is what is confusing you: You *can't* use da to refer to
something specific. (Any usage which does is incorrect, and should
probably be using ti/ta/tu). The difference between da and ko'a
is the same as between le and lo.
> Also, ko'a can be introduced by a speaker that does not actually know
> which dog it refers to.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature