[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> I don't understand. English "nauseous" can mean "experiencing nausea"
> or "inducing nausea". Or are you making a different point?
No, but I reckon the first sense to be erroneous (not part of formal
written English, that is). This is undoubtedly changing, though.
Just another of those rearguard actions....
> > > {loi} = {pisu'o loi} & means "pisu'o loi"
> > > {piroloi} means "piro loi" = "loi"
> >
> > What does the final '= "loi"' mean?
>
> It means that "pi ro loi" means the same as "loi". They are
> interchangeable.
So {loi} does not mean "loi" in this (to me bizarre) usage?
If so, I can't call it *wrong*, merely (AFAICT) unmotivated.
> Indeed so. But the lesson we should draw is that 'referent' is not
> the appropriate notion to capture the relationship between my tap's
> sound and Xena's ululation, or between branches and snakes, and so
> forth.
Fair enough, but what are we do to with the undoubted artworks of
Jackson Pollock and friends, which are representations that don't
(AFAICT) have referents?
--
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known; John Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone; jcowan@hidden.email
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind; www.ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)