Re: mi viska ta poi pagbu lo gunma

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

I agree with what you wrote on the subject line. {ta} is what you see,
and it is a part of a mass, it is not the whole mass that is not there.

> 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".

That's fine. {ta} is the book that you see, not the ones on the shelf.
You wouldn't say {mi viska ta poi cukta girzu}.

> 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.

That's fine too. When I point to something and refer to it as {ta} I don't
usually mean "that as it is at this instant only" but "that which exists
now but usually extends to the past and future".

Jorge