WikiDiscuss

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> Why "the Mad"? The original was "Fury". At least make it "the Angry",
> "the Mad" makes me think of {la fenki}.

"mad" in American English means primarily "angry", not "crazy".

> Rather: it selects from all the referents of the sumti
> just those that satisfy the relative clause.

This wording is good.

> With demonstratives, it would seem that both {poi} and {noi} can be
> used, though {noi} makes more sense to me. The referent of {ta} is
> presumably only the thing that the speaker is asking about, so there
> is no need to further restrict it. With {poi}, it would seem to say
> "Out of all those things, what are the ones that are at the window?"

"poi" serves as a sortal; ta poi mrenu = that (a man) vs. ta poi nazbi
= that (the man's nose).

> I think {voi} should be non-restrictive, because the speaker already has
> just the referents that they have in mind in mind. Further restriction
> seems unnecessary.

That's a good point abstractly, but can you provide a motivating example?

--
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, John Cowan
is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901) jcowan@reutershealth.com