Re: [lojban] nu pa moi se nunkei la'e lu lo do ckiku ma zvati li'u lu'u

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> poi - noi
> pe - ne
> po'u - no'u
> and po and po'e are like their own little beasts.  Which brings up another
> question.  Why no incidental versions of {po} and {po'e}?  All the other
> restrictive markers have incidental counterparts.

The question I would ask instead is why bother with "po" and "po'e" at all?

"po" can only be useful to someone really obsessed with property,
otherwise "pe" works just fine, and in the cases when it's really
important to emphasize a property relationship, then you can always
say "poi se ponse".  What's so special about the "ponse" relationship
that it needs a special shortcut word?

So you don't really need an incidental version of "po", you can just
use "noi se ponse" if the need ever arises.

As for "po'e", it is really hard to come up with an example where you
would use "po'e" instead of "be". "po'e" doesn't really make much
sense for a language like Lojban where all the words are intrinsically
relationships. And I don't even know what you would do with an
incidental version of "po'e", since even the restrictive version is so
useless. What did you need it for?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.