On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:01:19PM +0300, Robin Turner wrote:
> > > When I said "you would only use it", I didn't mean "you can never
> > > use it in any other way." Unbound ko'a is grammatical, but
> > > stylistically I think it's malglico.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > le mi mamta mamta cu mutce nelci le karce .i ko'a ji'a nelci le
> > ladru
> >
> > I don't see that anyone's going to have much confusion there, and
> > since I presumably intend to deliver a bunch more sentences
> > involving le mi mamta mamta, it seems a reasonable thing to do.
>
>
> This is not the most convincing use of unbound ko'a, for reasons which
> have already been discovered.
>
> Suppose we want to introduce a new variable, without claiming existence,
> and which lasts longer than da does (gets reset after every bridi, they
> say!) but by position, without altering the bridi structure simply to
> expose the sumti for goiery?
da can't get reset because it never is set...because it never refers
to a specific thing.
da has scope that can end sub-bridi (in a subsentence rule, etc).
Saying that it "resets" suggests a misunderstanding of da.
> le mi mamta mamta cu nelci le karce be fi ko'a .i ku'i ko'a ckape .i ko
> stidi ma mi
ko'a ki'a
--
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:
pgpQqgLKGwCdN.pgp
Description: PGP signature