[lojban] Re: possessives

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

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Philip Newton wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:54:42 -0500 (CDT), Adam D. Lopresto
> <adam@pubcrawler.org> wrote:
> > And I'd much sooner use {be} where appropriate, eg {le speni be do}, {loi kerfa
> > be do}.  Slightly longer, but most specific.
>
> Somebody at one point pointed out that he didn't see any use for
> {po'e}, since the "obvious" cases (including the ones usually used as
> examples - e.g. people's limbs, a book inalienably connected with its
> author, etc.), {be} will work in the "obvious" brivla.
>
> Can someone think of a case for {po'e} that can't be replaced by {be}?

Well, {pruxi} has come up a few times, translated (perhaps over broadly) as
"soul".  In general, though, pretty much any time you have an inalienable
relationship between one object and another, if it's not part of the place
structure, it should be.

>
> mu'o mi'e .filip.
>

-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

What exactly do we mean when we use the word "semantics"?