From adam@pubcrawler.org Mon Oct 25 11:09:17 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.252.145.1] (helo=moth.int.cec.wustl.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1CM9Gw-0004ui-Bw for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:08:46 -0700 Received: from moth.int.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by moth.int.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9PGsher016957; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:54:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by moth.int.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i9PGsgFJ016953; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:54:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: moth.int.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:54:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: possessives In-Reply-To: <417D0787.5040902@bilkent.edu.tr> Message-ID: References: <417D0787.5040902@bilkent.edu.tr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-archive-position: 8856 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, robin wrote: > Mr Ekted wrote: >> >> Hi all, trying to get back into lojban after taking a long break. I am >> curious about pe, po, po'e. There seems to be some room for idiom in >> their descriptions in the level0 book. Does the word "possession" >> really mean ownership, or is it intended to simply mean association? >> My hair will always be my hair, but if I cut it off and give it to >> you, it is now "also" your hair by possession. How do you specify the >> difference? > > I'd say it was simultaneously "loi kerfa po'e mi" and "loi kerfa po do". It > is inalienably associated with me by virtue of having my DNA, and alienably > yours by virtue of legal possession. "po'e" implies that there is some > unchangable quality which links the possessed to the possessor (in the > broadest possible sense of possess). > >> Also: >> >> my country >> >> If you used po'e, does this specifically say "you ARE the country", or >> can it mean a lifelong loyalty/nationalism? > > I'd say it implied that you were born in that country. Or were raised there, and consider it inalienably yours. >> my soul >> >> If you use po, does it imply that you feel you can lose your soul, as >> opposed to po'e? > > I don't think you could meaningfully say "lo pruxi po mi" unless you were > some being that could not only lose its soul but swap souls around at will > (I'm ignoring the question of how, if one accepts the existence of souls, > there vould be an "I" distinct from my soul). Otherwise it's like any other > part of you. My hair is still "loi kerfa po'e mi" even if I cut it off and > sell it to a wig-maker; I assume the same would apply to my soul. Even if I > sell my soul to the Devil, he would presumably refer to it as "lo pruxi po'e > la robin." I thought po'e implied po, and either of them implied pe. That is, there's nothing wrong with {lo pruxi po do}, it's just not as specific as it could be. >> Also, ising using pe considered appropriate in all cases when po/po'e >> are more appropriate, without any notions of insult? > > "pe" is simply less specific (it's analagous to the all-purpose "nu" for > states/events). I don't see why it should be insulting, and from the point of > view of tact, "pe" might even be preferable, since you are avoiding the > question of possession and alienability (it's certainly the one I'd use for > "speni"). In most of the cases you describe, I would in any case use the > shorthand "loi mi kerfa," "lo mi pruxi" etc. And I'd much sooner use {be} where appropriate, eg {le speni be do}, {loi kerfa be do}. Slightly longer, but most specific. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it. (Joseph Romm, Washington)