[ li'o ]
> > > > mi pu viska lo pixra skina i lo ro cribe pe ri cu
dasni lo mapku
> > > > "I saw a cartoon. All bears in it wore hats."
> >
> > mi pu klama lo dalpanka i lo ro cribe pe ri cu dasni lo
mapku
> > "I went to a zoo. All bears in it wore hats."
> >
> Yes, zasti-typeness is figured out from context. {pe} is, after
all,
> highly context-based, and so are, usually, ti/ta/tu and friends.
´
{pe ri} = {poi ke'a srana ri}. It is not more context-based than
other
In what way do they pertain to the cartoon? What are you really
saying? There are many ways that something can pertain to something
else. If I'm a runner, I in some way pertain to the path I run on.
What you're saying here is that the bears pertain to the cartoon, yes,
but what they really are is "existing within the perceptual universe
of the cartoon". Knowing that it's this and not some other type of
"pertains" relies heavily on context.
restrictive clauses. The point here is that depending on what the
restriction is, the unrestricted set is changed. In one case it
includes non-existent bears and in the other it doesn't.