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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:14:13 EDT

In a message dated 8/24/2001 11:20:08 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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
> 

Well, I have to admit that those cases, with name/titles rather than 
decriptors are pretty convincing. Except, of course, that they fall under 
the original {me}, without any significant extension -- and even save a 
{la'o} . 
I am unsure what intensionalizing a name means or making it into a property, 
different from being identical with the bearer of the name.

Still, how do I say "mine"?