From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Apr 23 10:57:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hg2mZ-0003mV-8I for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:57:00 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.237]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hg2mO-0003mI-Nx for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:56:58 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so3082844wxd for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:56:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=E8pVNLvR2wGXrBMqNzRW5q9WOJ2HGKr6WD37uiJZXMHESX/3MoRqNaSHXPkwWY5yswITtALYpIx1yWVauUzme/rTPDK6AYRN6u/6UCk2CIs+raxSwBMCzck8YDq46UGyO16e1rP77KJxiB2s0mkbGLWjucSBFQKSuR5KonkT+Qw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=jaSrX42tBn5vLYsG+uAgp3oT9I7NVDR940UIIMNAjDa0xizllYkNaXUsdoUDW8A48ynuOzwqu6ERlwq5tKhqYpJRc7EPBF6JwSWxEQaaAFi1ntzxW+2mgj8tfOoE5HOgY1Mg7hDqx0oq6SLXzE5kiMxx7NpxqBGsh/wwTHLAF+A= Received: by 10.70.57.8 with SMTP id f8mr4082523wxa.1177350999467; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.20.19 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:56:39 +0100 From: "james riley" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: New lojbanist asking about "po'e" and "lo" In-Reply-To: <12d58c160704230941w230ebadal3871c1dbdf94841a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_61272_25701713.1177350999266" References: <12d58c160704221513l39365a34s33805cad064dd970@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160704230941w230ebadal3871c1dbdf94841a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Score-Int: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - X-archive-position: 4393 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jimr1603@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_61272_25701713.1177350999266 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On "allows, not urges", I thought of the bit in lojban for beginners where "Lojban should work for you, not the other way around", to paraphrase. fe'o mi'e cmacis. On 23/04/07, komfo,amonan wrote: > > On 4/23/07, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, komfo,amonan wrote: > > > > > I would say { po'e } is definitely wrong and { po } almost definitely > > wrong, > > > because they imply ownership, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in > > which > > > one wishes to assert ownership over one's father. > > > > I'm afraid you're definitely wrong. Although {po} and {po'e} can be > > used for > > possession, they are much more broad than that. {lo patfu po mi} and > > {lo > > patfu po'e} are both absolutely fine. The Lojban words are about > > association, > > not possession. > > > e'e nai Thanks for the clarification. The English definition of {po'e} > implies possession to me, but interestingly the Lojban-in-Lojban definition > in jbovlaste aligns with your assertion. > > mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan > ------=_Part_61272_25701713.1177350999266 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On "allows, not urges", I thought of the bit in lojban for beginners where "Lojban should work for you, not the other way around", to paraphrase.

fe'o mi'e cmacis.

On 23/04/07, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/07, Adam D. Lopresto <adam@pubcrawler.org> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, komfo,amonan wrote:

> I would say { po'e } is definitely wrong and { po } almost definitely wrong,
> because they imply ownership, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which
> one wishes to assert ownership over one's father.

I'm afraid you're definitely wrong.  Although {po} and {po'e} can be used for
possession, they are much more broad than that.  {lo patfu po mi} and {lo
patfu po'e} are both absolutely fine.  The Lojban words are about association,
not possession.

e'e nai Thanks for the clarification. The English definition of {po'e} implies possession to me, but interestingly the Lojban-in-Lojban definition in jbovlaste aligns with your assertion.


mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

------=_Part_61272_25701713.1177350999266--