Message-Id: <m0sUUwg-0000ZJC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 8 Jul 1995 03:55:51 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      mi viska ta poi pagbu lo gunma
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1169
Lines: 26

>> If you say
>> "mi viska ta" while conceiving of the mass you aren't saying that you
>> see the whole of it.
>
>My point was that you cannot conceive of {ta} as being something that is
>mostly not there.  {ta} means "that thing there", and if the object in
>question is mostly not there, then you can't use {ta} to refer directly
>to it.  (You can of course say {le se pagbu be ta} or something like
>that.)

It isn't hard to come up with examples where you would indeed say "ta"
when the referent is mostly not there.

My kids have taken several of a set of books and used them in a
different room.  Most are still on the shelf, but my wife is in the
library looking for one that is not there.  She calls up to me and asks
"?xu do viska loi cukta girzu".  I know that she knows about the ones on
the shelf, but I see the rest, and I point saying "mi ta go'i".

I'm watching a film on TV.  Now clearly the whole film isn't visible at
one time on the TV.  So the film is a mass that I would refer to even
though I see only a small part of.  If there were two TVs with different
shows on, I could point to the one with the film using "ta" to refer to
the film.

lojbab