Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hg199-00012v-B2 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:12:12 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hg191-000124-Ni for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:12:10 -0700 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id l3NGBuxT021748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:11:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3NGBuCC026349; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:11:56 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l3NGBubv026346; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:11:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:11:56 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: New lojbanist asking about "po'e" and "lo" In-Reply-To: <12d58c160704221513l39365a34s33805cad064dd970@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <12d58c160704221513l39365a34s33805cad064dd970@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4379 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 1932 On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, komfo,amonan wrote: > On 4/22/07, Rob Hughes wrote: > > > > First, I'm puzzled about the relationship between "po'e" and "po". I > > understand that "po'e" can be used for unique inalienable possession. > > My hands are only mine and can't stop being mine, so I say "lo xance > > po'e mi". Is "po'e" used for inalienable possession that isn't > > unique? My father can't stop being my father, but he's also my > > sister's father. Can I say "lo patfu po'e mi", or should I say "lo > > patfu pe me" (or "lo mi patfu")? {po'e} is fine for non-unique inalienable possession. > The short answer is: { lo patfu be mi }. That pretty much covers most all > meanings of "my father". Yes, that's definitely the best way to do it. > { lo patfu pe mi }/{ lo mi patfu } is common, correct, and less precise. > > I would say { po'e } is definitely wrong and { po } almost definitely wrong, > because they imply ownership, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which > one wishes to assert ownership over one's father. I'm afraid you're definitely wrong. Although {po} and {po'e} can be used for possession, they are much more broad than that. {lo patfu po mi} and {lo patfu po'e} are both absolutely fine. The Lojban words are about association, not possession. > There are perhaps some cultures where some familial relationships have an > ownership dynamic. But the place structures of those gismu release us from > such thorny issues. > > Remember that although English bids us say "my book", "my novel", "my > liver", "my father", Lojban urges us to make finer distinctions. Allows, not urges. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Note: No Microsoft programs were used in the creation or distribution of this message. If you are using a Microsoft program to view this message, be forewarned that I am not responsible for any harm you may encounter as a result.