But you seem to have answered this question. As xorxes notes, our formula 'lo ca me mi' or whatever, clearly indicates a temporally segmented mi, 'mi' alone leaves the matter open. So how do we speak of the perduring mi?
I'd say that 'mi' alone is the perduring mi, and that {lo me mi} is roughly equivalent to it (minus lo's ability to retrieve only salient referents / not-quite-referents, i.e. me-mi goo). Tacking extra specifications onto lo me mi is what gets at particular, time-local referents.
On a philosophical level, I'm not too fond of the idea of time-locally delimited sumti, and I've always found ways to rephrase. A longlasting problem was "I'm better at swimming than I used to be," which, rather than with {zmadu}, I translate with {ba'o zenba}.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.