On 2 May 2013 22:23, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
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}.