From cowan@ccil.org Sun Sep 24 19:34:37 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@locke.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 25 Sep 2000 02:34:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 10245 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2000 02:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Sep 2000 02:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2000 02:34:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA22092; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:34:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Pierre Abbat Cc: Lojban list Subject: Re: [lojban] pe:ne::po:? In-Reply-To: <0009232236111G.00920@neofelis> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Pierre Abbat wrote: > 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? With a paraphrase such as "noi steci" = "that which incidentally is specific to". This concept wasn't considered useful enough to warrant its own cmavo. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter