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

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> 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?

With a paraphrase such as "noi steci" = "that which incidentally is
specific to".  This concept wasn't considered useful enough to warrant
its own cmavo.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter