From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Oct 27 12:24:49 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:31:49 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3279; Tue, 27 Oct 92 17:28:49 EST Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 3701; Tue, 27 Oct 92 17:28:47 EST Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:24:49 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: goat's legs X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: "(John Cowan)"'s message of Mon, 26 Oct 1992 13:06:55 -0500 Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: I don't really have the time nor the preparation to do this properly, but I want to do a mini-rant against {ponse}. Use with extreme caution. I'm not convinced we shouldn't rip the sucker out entirely, but I'll concede that's probably a bad move. Even as E-Primeniks say that "to be" is too vague to be used, I say that "to have/{ponse}" is as well (yes, I don't agree with E-primeniks in general, but their theory has a kernel of truth). It's just *so* easy to use {ponse} and never say what it means. Oh, sure, we all *know* that when you have a cold in Lojban you are {bilma fi la kold.}, but I'll bet you that someone real soon will try {ponse la kold.}. Already we have {ponse lo tuple}, which is very malglico. Lojban is supposed to be a well-defined language. Exactly what does {ponse} mean? Legally possess? OK, but if I can't remember who picked up my book when I dropped it, would I say {xu do ponse le cukta pe mi}? You don't legally possess it! To be holding or otherwise carrying? We have {jgari} and {bevri} (the latter probably wrong in most situations, admittedly). To be somehow associated with it? We have {stici}. Could you say {mi ponse le ka melbi} for "I have the quality of beauty"? No! Apart from the obvious but not quite equivalent {mi melbi}, there's {mi ckaji le ka melbi}. That's what {ckaji} is for. But that won't stop people from using {ponse}. I'll bet there is a case out there for which {ponse} is required, and I'm sure someone will quote it for me, but I still think it should be used *very* sparingly. More if I feel like ranting later... ~mark