Subject: RE: [lojban] po'u considered harmful

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:52:22 -0500

>> The phrase 'mi po'u la kreig.' expands to 'mi poi du la kreig.', which
>> further becomes 'mi poi ke'a du la kreig.', which in turn asserts that
'ke'a
>> du la kreig.', and since ke'a = mi here, it asserts that 'mi du la
kreig.'.
>> It is, however, not expressing equality in a mathematical sense, as two
>> people (mi and la kreig.) might be the same person, as they are here, but
>> they have no numerical values and thus are not equal to one another. In
>> fact, such a use of du as 'mi du la kreig' would surely be taken as being
>> malglico by most lojban-speaking listeners, as one could easily say
either
>> 'mi'e kreig.' or 'mi me la kreig.' The former has no relevance to a
>> discussion of po'u, obviously, but notice that 'poime' and 'po'u' have
very
>> similar grammars and the same number of syllables.

>Why do you assume po'u means {poi du} and now {poi me}?

I originally assume poi du, then I change not to assuming it means poi me
but to assuming it is similar in meaning and grammar - which it is.

>> However, the second of these examples runs into the second problem with
>> po'u: ignorance of the place structure of du. Since po'u implies a
stealth
>> du, 'mi po'u la kreig le zarci cu klama' in fact means 'mi poi ke'a du la
>> kreig le zarci cu klama' - and thus asserts that 'mi du la kreig le
zarci',
>> for du is multi-placed and asserts all places to be equal. mi na zarci,
so
>> when using po'u, ku or ku'o is more necessary than commonly interpreted;
I
>> am probably guilty of calling myself things that I am not for this
reason.

>This is just wrong. Only one sumti goes inside po'u. Replacing it with
>{poi du} or {poi me} on the fly, for this reason, doesn't work. If you
>don't believe me, look at how jbofi'e parses {mi po'u la kreig. le zarci
>cu klama}.

I had been interpreting the Book's statement (in chapter 8) that po'u means
poi du as meaning that po'u means poi du. I do not see any mention of it
ending after one sumti, though that may just be because I lack the print
version.

>So the reason {po'u} is useful is because it ends after one sumti, and
>neither {poi me} or {poi du} do.

I have seen no mention of this elsewhere. I am willing to accept that I may
be wrong on this, but I would need to see some evidence that I am. Sorry,
but jbofi'e carries less weight than does the Book, in my mind. Show me
where the anything official says it stops at one sumti and I will only push
the malglico bit.

>> For these reasons, I will now begin to use 'poime' instead of 'po'u'
>> whenever I remember, and encourage others to do the same.

>Knock yourself out.
>--
>la rab.spir
>poi me le sarji be zo gumri