[lojban-beginners] association (pe/be)

[Andrew Heathwaite <gtrpkt@yahoo.com>]

coi

I have a question about 'pe' and 'be'.

As I understand it, one would use 'pe' to show a vague association
between two things, which is often a sort of possession.  For
example, using kanba:

kanba - x1 is a goat/angora/[billy-goat/kid] of species/breed x2

le kanba pe mi
the goat associated with me
my goat

But when the brivla has a place for an "owner", one should use an
internal sumti with 'be' instead of 'pe'.  For example, the place
structure of zdani:

x1 is a nest/house/lair/den/[home] of/for x2

To say 'my home', one would say:

le zdani be mi
the house of me
my house

'be' makes 'mi' fill the x2 place of zdani.  This is more explicit
than using 'pe', so it is preferred, yes?  If there were a third
place in kanba for the owner (caretaker, what have you) of the goat,
we'd use 'be' with kanba in this instance, but since there is no such
place, we don't, yes?

Now we have a shortened way of showing association by putting the
associated thing between the main thing and the article:

le mi kanba
the me goat
my goat

which means exactly the same thing as:

le kanba pe mi

As I understand it, we can include 'pe' in this sort of phrase, if we
want:

le pe mi kanba
the of me goat
my goat

which means exactly the same as the above

This brings me to my main question, which is, can we use 'be' the
same way to show an explicit association using the place structure of
the main brivla?  For example:

le be mi zdani
the of me home
my home

Is this grammatical?  If not, does that mean that whenever we want to
say "my home", we have to say "le zdani be mi" and there's no way to
switch them around?

Thanks in advance for your response.  I've looked this up in The
Complete Lojban Language, but I still wasn't sure.

.io ki'e mu'o mi'e .andros.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com