Subject: Re: mine, thine, hisn, hern, itsn ourn, yourn and theirn (was[lojban] si'o)

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:19:47 +0100

pc:
[email-masked] writes:
#> (damn, I miss the real and useful {me}),
#> 
#> When we went along with TLI on the change in me, we had determined that 
#> there was an easy alternate way to do the old me. Why is it unsatisfactory?
# 
[...]
#"x1 is subject to a nonessential defensible and defeasible claim to privileged 
#association or use by x2" is what in Lojban?

I have no idea. If you want to say it, make a LUJVO.

OTOH, there is no alternative way of expressing current {me}, which 
creates a property -- intensionalizes -- its sumti, and ascribes the
property to x1.

la'o la'o Sean Connery la'o pa moi me la'o la'o James Bond la'o

so'i da me la'o la'o dalai lama la'o

(fuck me! "dalai lama" is an invalid cmene if ever there was!)

--And.