Re: rights

[Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

>
> I still wouldn't mix variableness with inalienability. As for {po'e}, I
> prefer
> not to use it. Hopefully, if the language ever gets simplified, it is one of
> the words that will go away, along with so many other superfluous cmavo
> and selma'o. I still haven't found an occasion where {po} or {po'e} give
> more precision than just using {pe}. And if there is such a need, it is
> very strange that there are no corresponding words for {ne}. Using
> {po'e} instead of {pe} for me is like using tense when there is no need
> for it. It may not be wrong, but it doesn't add anything. In this particular
> case, as you say below, it is not even clear that it makes sense to
> associate someone's rights with {po'e}.

I wouldn't want to ditch {po} and {po'e} entrirely, though I agree that in
practice people will probably use {pe}.  One of the things I like about about
Lojban grammar is that you can use as much or as little of it as you want (I
point which I've made a few times on the AUXLANG list).  So although {pe} can
and will be used most of the time, there may be times where you want to draw a
distinction between alienable and inalienable possession.

co'o mi'e robin.