[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> 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...
You seem to be right, because OED1 lists the former sense as obsolete,
so there must have been a period when it meant only the latter.
> > > > {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?
Bizarrely, {loi} does not mean "loi", except when preceded by
{piro}. But this is not a mere usage; it is a reasoned deduction.
> If so, I can't call it *wrong*, merely (AFAICT) unmotivated
So what do you think is the difference in meaning between
"the whole of X" (as distinct from "every part of X") and just
"X"?
> > 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?
I'll think about it. But either {pixra} is ambiguous or they are not
pixra. They are evokers, I would say.
--And.