[lojban] Re: possessives

["Adam D. Lopresto" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, robin wrote:

> Mr Ekted wrote:
> > Hi all, trying to get back into lojban after taking a long break. I am
> > curious about pe, po, po'e. There seems to be some room for idiom in
> > their descriptions in the level0 book. Does the word "possession"
> > really mean ownership, or is it intended to simply mean association?
> > My hair will always be my hair, but if I cut it off and give it to
> > you, it is now "also" your hair by possession. How do you specify the
> > difference?
>
> I'd say it was simultaneously "loi kerfa po'e mi" and "loi kerfa po do". It 
> is inalienably associated with me by virtue of having my DNA, and alienably 
> yours by virtue of legal possession. "po'e" implies that there is some 
> unchangable quality which links the possessed to the possessor (in the 
> broadest possible sense of possess).
>
> > Also:
> >
> > my country
> >
> > If you used po'e, does this specifically say "you ARE the country", or
> > can it mean a lifelong loyalty/nationalism?
>
> I'd say it implied that you were born in that country.

Or were raised there, and consider it inalienably yours.

> > my soul
> >
> > If you use po, does it imply that you feel you can lose your soul, as
> > opposed to po'e?
>
> I don't think you could meaningfully say "lo pruxi po mi" unless you were 
> some being that could not only lose its soul but swap souls around at will 
> (I'm ignoring the question of how, if one accepts the existence of souls, 
> there vould be an "I" distinct from my soul). Otherwise it's like any other 
> part of you. My hair is still "loi kerfa po'e mi" even if I cut it off and 
> sell it to a wig-maker; I assume the same would apply to my soul. Even if I 
> sell my soul to the Devil, he would presumably refer to it as "lo pruxi po'e 
> la robin."

I thought po'e implied po, and either of them implied pe.  That is, there's
nothing wrong with {lo pruxi po do}, it's just not as specific as it could be.

> > Also, ising using pe considered appropriate in all cases when po/po'e
> > are more appropriate, without any notions of insult?
>
> "pe" is simply less specific (it's analagous to the all-purpose "nu" for 
> states/events). I don't see why it should be insulting, and from the point of 
> view of tact, "pe" might even be preferable, since you are avoiding the 
> question of possession and alienability (it's certainly the one I'd use for 
> "speni").  In most of the cases you describe, I would in any case use the 
> shorthand "loi mi kerfa," "lo mi pruxi" etc.

And I'd much sooner use {be} where appropriate, eg {le speni be do}, {loi kerfa
be do}.  Slightly longer, but most specific.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like
a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without
one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the
country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at
a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.
(Joseph Romm, Washington)