I am going to start from the beginning because I think I slightly misspoke.
• [A] {mi tirna zo'e}
• [B] {mi tirna su'o da}
• [C] {(da'o) mi tirna ko'a} (usage of a constant {ko'a} which hasn't
been assigned a value explicitly earlier)
How does [A] semantically differ from [B] and [C]? (I suspect that the
two latters ultimately mean the same thing.)
Instead of "logically equivalent", I think what I should have said is that B can be inferred (i.e. existentially generalized) given C, but C can be inferred (i.e. existentially instantiated) given B _only_ if {ko'a} is an unused symbol without "baggage" restrictions. I know that {da'o} clears KOhA-assignments, but it's possible that KOhA acquires new ones as soon as you use them, even without {goi}. The question is, what exactly does {ko'a} after {da'o} without {goi} mean? I see two possibilities for {(da'o) mi tirna ko'a}:
C(a): = {(da'o) su'o da zo'u mi tirna da goi ko'a}
"I hear something -- call it X".
(Effect: Something unspecified, except that I hear it, is assigned a constant.)
C(b): = {(da'o) mi tirna zo'e goi ko'a}
"I hear [it/obvious value/whatever I hear] -- call it X"
(Effect: Something at least potentially specified by context is assigned a constant.)
It's not clear that the truth-conditions of C(a) and C(b) are the same. The first is true if I hear anything, and the second is true -- at least potentially -- only if I hear the thing which is specific to the context.
I'll stop here for today. The CLL doesn't say how to interpret an unassigned {ko'a}, but implicit {zo'e goi} seems to fit both the usual logic of place-defaults as well as the spirit of {ko'a}, since {ko'a} is usually assigned to specific entities.
mi'e .maik.
mu'o