Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pBoka-0000PbC; Mon, 20 Dec 93 19:50 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2493; Mon, 20 Dec 93 19:50:52 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2490; Mon, 20 Dec 1993 19:50:51 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0588; Mon, 20 Dec 1993 18:49:45 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 12:48:25 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: POssessives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199312201629.AA14830@nfs1.digex.net> from "Colin Fine" at Dec 20, 93 04:21:37 pm Content-Length: 1160 Lines: 31 la kolin. cusku di'e > But it suddenly occurred to me to wonder how Loglan would have > turned out in this regard if JCB and the rest of us had all been > speakers of an NG language like French instead of a predominently > GN one like English? Would we have felt the need for preposed > genitives? Or would they be restricted in some way to personal > pronouns (as in French, where > > le le ctuca ku mlatu > comes out as > le chat de la professeur > ie with the structure > le mlatu pe le ctuca > > but > le mi mlatu > is still > mon chat > )? Well, in Loglan the structures "le mi botcu" and "le la Kristobal Kolon botcu" actually parse differently: "(le mi) botcu" vs "le (la K.K.) botcu", because he treats LE+KOhA as grammatically equivalent to LE. We eliminated this botch. So in some sense JCB does feel the pronominal possessives to be different from (and more basic than) the long-winded possessives. (He does speak Spanish, remember, so the Romance connection isn't that farfetched.) -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.