Re: PLI: se pixra (PU: TECH: opacity continued)

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> Goran:
> > I am happy with {ti pixra le/lo/lo/lo'e/le'e gerku}, depending on what
> > you want.
>
> That's right, but (ignoring nonveridicality) all claim or at least
> imply that you could go out into the world (possibly equipped with
> time machine) and find the dog that is depicted.

That's true of le/lo, but not of lo'e/le'e, IMHO... I take {ti pixra
lo'e gerku} to mean "This is a picture of some generic dog." For {lo
gerku}, the streak of white fur above the right eye is significant. It
is a specific dog. Some dog, I might not know which one, but I am sure
it exists somewhere. Now, with {lo'e gerku} the only thing that matters
to me is it's basic dogness. {lo pixra lo'e gerku} is a picture of
something noi ckaji dogness. But it is just a concept, and not your
actual I-can-pet-it-and-feed-it-and-take-it-home type of a dog. xunai?

> > Of course, you can't use lo'e on photos, just paintings.
>
> I don't see that.

'Cause a photo always shows an actual I-can-pet-it-and-feed-it-and-take-
it-home type of a dog. As far as I understand your discussions (which
is not very much, I must admit), at least some of you take {mi zgana
lo'e cipni} to mean "I watch birds" or "I am a bird-watcher", but not "I
am watching a bird", or even "I noticed a typical bird". The latter is
{mi zgana lo fadni cipni}, right? You just don't use {lo'e} for the
actual instances, only for the concept. "I am a noticer of Miss Bird,
whenever She chooses to show Herself to me." Same logic. You don't use
lo'e if you refer to some specific instance of Mr. Dog.

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out