Date:  Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:41:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802210341.WAA25745@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:      properties and possessions
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-UIDL: 55ea83589dc8266a2c521936b2579a63
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 23 11:52:32 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Consider these sentences:

                mi dunda le ka blabi kei le bitmu
                I give whiteness to the wall.

                le bitmu cu cpacu le ka blabi
                The wall gets whiteness.

                le bitmu cu ralte le ka blabi
                The wall retains whiteness.

                le bitmu cu cirko le ka blabi
                The wall loses whiteness.

                le bitmu cu claxu le ka blabi
                The wall lacks whiteness.

                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?

co'o mi'e xorxes