[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] unbound ko'a (was: RE: kau


la and cusku di'e

> {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"? 

The former. If it were up to me to decide, {ko'a} would always
be a singular term. It could mean "they're dogs", but with a
singular term "they".

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.


I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I haven't
felt much need for it but then I don't use ko'a much at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail