From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Wed Jan 15 17:28:13 1992 Return-Path: Message-Id: <9201151222.AA08106@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 09:24:25 GMT Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: Putting hands into pockets X-To: gilson X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: ; from "61510::GILSON" at Jan 14, 92 11:33 am Status: RO Bruce answers John Cowan: > > > John Cowan writes: > > >(Note that English is over-specific by Lojban standards in saying "his cousin". > >and "his nose". Likewise, English idiomatically says "He put his hands in his > >pockets": to speakers of other languages, the question naturally arises > >"Whose pockets would he put his hands in?", and even more peculiar, "Whose > >hands would he put in his pockets?".) > > Well, although the normal thing for me to do is move my _own_ hands and put them > in my _own_ pocket, if I was a pickpocket, I'd be putting my hands into someone > else's pocket. And if I was annoyed with a child waving his hand constantly, I > could conceivably grab the child's hand and jam it into his pocket. (I could > even jam Billy's hand into Mike's pocket if they were side by side, though > that _would_ be a little peculiar!) So "X puts Y's hand into Z's pocket" does > not require identity of X, Y, and Z even in practical situations, and Lojban > allows even for impractical situations (remember an earlier discussion about > "You're looking very Canadian today"?). > > Bruce > I think you've misunderstood John's point. I believe John's questions were meant as "Who else's pocket..." and "Who else's hand..." Of course you could specify somebody else's - in English, French or Lojban. The point is that this is an example where Lojban is like many languages, and unlike English, in allowing a detail to be omitted. Colin