On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:19:13AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: [...] > da persists for a while. If da expired after a single bridi, there would > have been no need for da'o. Plus, it would make it virtually useless. So > da can be narrowed down with successive claims, whereas, I agree with you > on the slipperiness of lo, in contrast. Huh? da'o is for ko'a and broda and such things. "da" is not like normal pro-sumti, it's got completely different uses and purposes. The binding "da", according to the book, must end at the end of a sentence. The book has a provision which says that in "informal speech" or something the rule is more fuzzy, and a da might be able to last for another bridi or two. But I think this rule sucks, and it's highly confusing when people try to use it (which i've never seen). If you want a "da" to keep it's referent across seperate sentences, just put them into one sentence: da klama .i da sipna Something comes. Something (else?) sleeps. da klama .ibo da sipna Something comes and it sleeps. -- 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:
pgp00049.pgp
Description: PGP signature