From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 12:47:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 15094 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.149) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:47:39 -0700 Received: from 200.42.118.84 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.118.84] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] pe:ne::po:? Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2000 19:47:39.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BD77060:01C02660] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pier cusku di'e >We have "pe" and "ne", the first being restrictive, the second incidental. >Similarly "poi" and "noi". Now if I do the same thing to "po", I get "no", >but >that means zero. So how do you express incidental possession? I express it with {ne}, just as I express restrictive possession with {pe}. I don't use {po} and {po'e}, in part because of this lack of symmetry, but mostly because I have never felt the need. I consider them part of the "bells and whistles" that complicate the language for no justifiable reason, so I hope they will just go away due to lack of use. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.