unbound ko'a (was: RE: kau

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> la xod cusku di'e
> >But people complain about {ko'a gerku}, if ko'a wasn't already
> >specified, instead of relaxing and treating it the same way as da 
> 
> {ko'a gerku} is fine as far as I can tell. It mean's "it's a dog" 
> {ko'a} has a referent that the speaker knows. 

Does it mean "it's a dog" or "each of it/them is a dog"?

I'm in two minds about whether unbound ko'a is licit. We could
do without it, by using {le du (goi ko'a)} as you yourself
once pointed out to me. I can't think of any obvious cons to
unbound ko'a except that in careful usage there might be so
many bound ko'a floating around that it might be confusing to
the reader.

--And.