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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:04:02

la nitcion cusku di'e

>So you can say the apple-th man, or the I-am-going-to-the-store-th
>instance of insubordination.

Exactly, and I can't think of a better interpretation than the
"pertaining to" one.

>How absolutely spiffy. We have a special construction in the language,
>just for being able to say "I have a snowball's chance in hell" as a
>numerical sumti.

The intent of the construction was something else, but the
generalisation of moi does not seem unnatural. (Esperanto does
something very similar btw: mia, via, unua, dua...)

As for special constructions, I think {soi} is the worst offender.
A whole construction just to take care of the word "viceversa"?
Lojban has far too many selma'o, but the MOI construction seems ok
to me.

>Well, live by the baseline, die by the baseline. So be it; .i ku'i lenu mi
>ba pilno lu me zo'e moi li'u cu me le'e snime bolci bevi le fabri pe la
>daptutra me'o cu'o
>
>[P.S. No flame intended to the author of the example, who I know was
>scrambling for something to illustrate this.]

Is {me ko'a cu'o} something like "x1 is as likely as ko'a [under
conditions x2]"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp