Re: selbri as sumti

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e

> la xorxes. cusku di'e
> > My
> > brushing my teeth today is a recurrence of my brushing my teeth
> > yesterday, but not of someone else's brushing their teeth, or me
> > brushing something else, or anything like that.
>
> Why not?  These are simply recurrences along different dimensions, like
> the recurrence of street lamps on a street (one every 5m, or whatever).
> Admittedly, the tense system only handles spatial and temporal dimensions,
> not {prenu} or {burcu se lumci} dimensions, but the full predicate grammar
> can cope.

Yes, that's what I concluded in the next paragraph. I'm not disagreeing,
just that that says that everything is a recurrence of everything else.
A mosquito and an elephant are both recurrences of {da}, perhaps the 51st
and 2764th recurrences? It depends on how you order things. Since krefu
has a place for the position but not for the dimension (and I hope
nobody decides to add one) I think it is reasonable to expect that the
only thing that changes from one occurrence to the next is the time.
(The word "again" in the definition much suggests this.) For ordering
in any arbitrary dimension, there is already {moi}, it seems more useful
to limit {krefu} to repetitions in time. I think that at least pragmatically
this will be the case.

Jorge