Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:47:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802231447.JAA28524@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: properties and possessions X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 4ad1a88c548700f6f7e795f0a7d334be X-Mozilla-Status: 8013 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 23 11:59:26 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >le bitmu cu ponse le ka blabi > The wall has whiteness. > >According to the gi'uste, for {dunda} and for {cirko} this should >be the standard use. for the others there is no explicit mention >of properties. Can we generalize from dunda and cirko so that >any place that accepts a possession also accepts a property? Probably, though for the last one of your examples (of all of them) I am troubled. That one has an apparent equivalent in le bitmu cu ckaji le ka blabi The wall is characterized by whiteness. and it seems to me that ponse does not, or at least should not be equivalent to ckaji. I am having trouble coming up with why, but a possibility is that mi ponse re karce mi ckaji le ka ponse re karce seem more equivalent and I would not say mi ponse le ka ponse re karce which leads to mi ponse le ka ponse le ka ponse re karce as infinitum. (On the other hand, I sense that I could play the same game with infinite recursion of ckaji. Yet this possibility doesn't seem to irriatate me in the same way. lojbab