From robin@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Thu Feb 4 01:34:59 1999 X-Digest-Num: 51 Message-ID: <44114.51.197.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 11:34:59 +0200 From: Robin Turner > I still wouldn't mix variableness with inalienability. As for {po'e}, I > prefer > not to use it. Hopefully, if the language ever gets simplified, it is one of > the words that will go away, along with so many other superfluous cmavo > and selma'o. I still haven't found an occasion where {po} or {po'e} give > more precision than just using {pe}. And if there is such a need, it is > very strange that there are no corresponding words for {ne}. Using > {po'e} instead of {pe} for me is like using tense when there is no need > for it. It may not be wrong, but it doesn't add anything. In this particular > case, as you say below, it is not even clear that it makes sense to > associate someone's rights with {po'e}. I wouldn't want to ditch {po} and {po'e} entrirely, though I agree that in practice people will probably use {pe}. One of the things I like about about Lojban grammar is that you can use as much or as little of it as you want (I point which I've made a few times on the AUXLANG list). So although {pe} can and will be used most of the time, there may be times where you want to draw a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. co'o mi'e robin.