Re: [lojban] pe:ne::po:?

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pier cusku di'e

> We have "pe" and "ne", the first being restrictive, the second incidental.
> Similarly "poi" and "noi". Now if I do the same thing to "po", I get "no", 
> but
> that means zero. So how do you express incidental possession?

I express it with {ne}, just as I express restrictive possession
with {pe}. I don't use {po} and {po'e}, in part because of this
lack of symmetry, but mostly because I have never felt the need.
I consider them part of the "bells and whistles" that complicate
the language for no justifiable reason, so I hope they will just
go away due to lack of use.

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.