[lojban] Re: use of ko'a

[Adam Raizen <araizen@newmail.net>]

de'i li 2003-07-19 ti'u li 16:43:00 la'o zoi. Craig .zoi cusku di'e

>>Unbound malglico.  Either use my. or le go'i or ra or bind the ko'a.
>>my. and ra even cost less syllables, so I don't see what argument
>>there is for the unbound ko'a.
>
>The argument is, pe'i, that it is grammatical so it ought to be meaningful.
>To those of you who argue for unbound ko'a, if that is your reason, I have a
>question for you. i pei xu cu'e xo ma mo? If not, then what is your reason?

That's not the argument. The argument is that it is grammatical, it has
an obvious meaning, and it is useful. Not every sumti place has to be
completely unambiguous; in fact, every use of 'le' is potentially ambiguous
in much the same way that unbound ko'a is (note that And uses 'le du' 
instead of unbound ko'a). If we wanted to get rid of every ambiguous
sumti, we should start with ra/ru and zo'e, even implicitly (i.e.,
no ellipsis).

mu'o mi'e .adam.