Date:  Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802240235.VAA29260@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: properties and possessions
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 26e10afcfa95ca2eebc3f9dfa1bed4f3
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 24 09:51:32 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

cu'u la rik
>You can try to analyze these sentences using the full place structure of
>the selbri.  Most of them work out OK with the exception of the last
>one.
>
>>     le bitmu cu ponse le ka blabi
>>     The wall has whiteness.
>
>What is le te ponse?

That's a good question. I don't know, physically?
How about

        le bitmu cu ponse le ka blabi kei le nu marji
        The wall possesses whiteness materially.

>Other than that, my only concern would be introducing polysemy.

We already have polysemy in the case of {dunda} and {cirko},
at least according to the gi'uste definition. My question is whether
we can generalize, and I think we must, because not all the
possession gismu have equivalents exclusively for properties.

co'o  mi'e xorxes