On May 21, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Maxim Katcharov wrote:
> [ 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.
>>
As I understand it, {le cribe pe lo pixra skina} could also refer to
bears who produced the cartoon, or possibly bears to whom the cartoon
was shown, or other suech scenarios. It doesn't make much sense in
the terms of bears, but it would be more plausable for something like
{le nanmu pe lo pixra skina}.