Possession/transfer/exchange predicates

[Jorge Llambías]

If we search for "pedantically" in the official gismu list, we find 15 hits, corresponding to the notes on these words:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima/jerna/jinga/kargu/pleji/prali/vamji/vecnu

The comment is basically the same for all of them: "pedantically, for objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from ownership of the object/commodity". This comment comes after saying that the argument place in question can be an object, commodity, event or property, so it's hard to say what the punctilious follower of the gismu list is supposed to do with these words. Are they allowed to take objects or not?

If we search for "sumti-raising" we get those 15 plus xajmi and djica.

In fact this is not really about raising in the linguistics sense of the term, so I won't be talking about sumti-raising. The question is whether argument places like these can take objects and/or events and/or properties.

There are other words that involve possession/transfer/exchange but for which the gismu list doesn't say anything explicitly about "sumti-raising", for example: claxu/pindi/ricfu/punji/sabji/jmina/dejni/jarco/lebna/cpacu/jbera/cuxna/vimcu/cpedu/mipri/sisku/sarji/cupra/dirce/ferti/xaksu/tisna/daspo/ralte

In the case of ricfu and pindi, for example, the list explicitly gives permission to use goods or properties in x2, without any "pedantically" warning. "claxu" on the other hand says nothing about the type of thing that can be lacked. It's hard to say whether this was done on purpose or it was just an oversight.

I don't know whether in real-life Lojban there are people who eschew "mi dunda lo plise do" in favor of "mi dunda lo ka ponse lo plise kei do", "mi dunda tu'a lo plise do" or "mi posydu'a lo plise do".

Let's cosinder these examples of "dunda":

(1) mi dunda lo plise do

(2) mi dunda lo nu mi gunka kei do

(3) mi dunda lo nu do gleki kei do

(4) mi dunda lo ka ce'u ponse lo plise kei do

(5) mi dunda lo ka ce'u gunka kei do

(6) mi dunda lo ka ce'u gleki kei do

I contend that (1) is unequivocally correct Lojban, and that the "pedantically" notes should be removed from the gismu list. I contend that (2) and (3) are also perfectly fine, x1 being responsible for the event and x3 being the beneficiary. I don't see any problems with (4). The question here is, is (4) correct because the property is transferred from x1 to x3, or is it correct because x1 is responsible for x3 acquiring the property? I think the latter is correct, which also justifies (6), and it also means that (5) is not correct in the sense of (2), since (5) should means that I give work to you, not that I giive my labor to you. The definition thus has to be clear about whose property we are talking about when a place takes a property (the gismu list mentios properties but doesn't say whose property it is).

I believe that that's basically how all of these possession/transfer/exchange predicates should work. Except for the basic ponse/ckaji split, which clearly distinguish possession of objects from possession of properties, all the other predicates can happily mix them up, and having two parallel lists for the ones and the others would be too costly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-09 2:07 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

If we search for "pedantically" in the official gismu list, we find 15 hits, corresponding to the notes on these words:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima/jerna/jinga/kargu/pleji/prali/vamji/vecnu

The comment is basically the same for all of them: "pedantically, for objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from ownership of the object/commodity". This comment comes after saying that the argument place in question can be an object, commodity, event or property, so it's hard to say what the punctilious follower of the gismu list is supposed to do with these words. Are they allowed to take objects or not?

If we search for "sumti-raising" we get those 15 plus xajmi and djica.

In fact this is not really about raising in the linguistics sense of the term, so I won't be talking about sumti-raising. The question is whether argument places like these can take objects and/or events and/or properties.

There are other words that involve possession/transfer/exchange but for which the gismu list doesn't say anything explicitly about "sumti-raising", for example: claxu/pindi/ricfu/punji/sabji/jmina/dejni/jarco/lebna/cpacu/jbera/cuxna/vimcu/cpedu/mipri/sisku/sarji/cupra/dirce/ferti/xaksu/tisna/daspo/ralte

In the case of ricfu and pindi, for example, the list explicitly gives permission to use goods or properties in x2, without any "pedantically" warning. "claxu" on the other hand says nothing about the type of thing that can be lacked. It's hard to say whether this was done on purpose or it was just an oversight.

I don't know whether in real-life Lojban there are people who eschew "mi dunda lo plise do" in favor of "mi dunda lo ka ponse lo plise kei do", "mi dunda tu'a lo plise do" or "mi posydu'a lo plise do".

Let's cosinder these examples of "dunda":

(1) mi dunda lo plise do

(2) mi dunda lo nu mi gunka kei do

(3) mi dunda lo nu do gleki kei do

(4) mi dunda lo ka ce'u ponse lo plise kei do

(5) mi dunda lo ka ce'u gunka kei do

(6) mi dunda lo ka ce'u gleki kei do

I contend that (1) is unequivocally correct Lojban, and that the "pedantically" notes should be removed from the gismu list. I contend that (2) and (3) are also perfectly fine, x1 being responsible for the event and x3 being the beneficiary. I don't see any problems with (4). The question here is, is (4) correct because the property is transferred from x1 to x3, or is it correct because x1 is responsible for x3 acquiring the property? I think the latter is correct, which also justifies (6), and it also means that (5) is not correct in the sense of (2), since (5) should means that I give work to you, not that I giive my labor to you. The definition thus has to be clear about whose property we are talking about when a place takes a property (the gismu list mentios properties but doesn't say whose property it is).

It's a non-problem for me to correct {dunda}. The main obstacle for me is that there might be much more than those 15 brivla that would allow "object" => "property" change. In my version of gimste all those places are marked as "located" and ... in fact the majority of places are "located" throughout the gimste.

I believe that that's basically how all of these possession/transfer/exchange predicates should work. Except for the basic ponse/ckaji split, which clearly distinguish possession of objects from possession of properties, all the other predicates can happily mix them up, and having two parallel lists for the ones and the others would be too costly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima/jerna/jinga/kargu/pleji/prali/vamji/vecnu

There are other words that involve possession/transfer/exchange but for which the gismu list doesn't say anything explicitly about "sumti-raising", for example: claxu/pindi/ricfu/punji/sabji/jmina/dejni/jarco/lebna/cpacu/jbera/cuxna/vimcu/cpedu/mipri/sisku/sarji/cupra/dirce/ferti/xaksu/tisna/daspo/ralte

It's a non-problem for me to correct {dunda}. The main obstacle for me is that there might be much more than those 15 brivla that would allow "object" => "property" change.

Indeed. I already listed 24 more. 

In my version of gimste all those places are marked as "located" and ... in fact the majority of places are "located" throughout the gimste.

 It is to be expected that the majority of places will be first and foremost for concrete objects. I think the biggest problem will be for those who are very anti-metaphor, or anti-unmarked metaphor, because they need to know exactly when a place admits a property in a literal sense and when it doesn't. For example, if I say "lo ka ce'u jbopre cu pagbu mi", is that literal or metaphoric? What about "lo ka ce'u senpi cu pagbu lo ka ce'u remna"? The official gismu list doesn't specify any types for "pagbu". What about "lo ka ce'u jbopre cu panlo mi"? 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I think it's better to start from limiting places to "located" (aka "object/event") and change them to properties carefully, thus slowly giving Lojban more freedom step by step. Thus we are already on the right track.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-09 2:07 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

If we search for "pedantically" in the official gismu list, we find 15 hits, corresponding to the notes on these words:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima

not sure what jdima1 should connect to.

the price of getting (becoming a possesor of) an apple or the price of giving an apple (giving a possesion)?

 

/jerna/jinga/kargu

kargu1 - property of x2???

/pleji

pleji4=property of pleji3

 

/prali/vamji

i forgot how to use vamji4

 

/vecnu

^ All these gismu moved to "klesi4=Action. Possesion interactions".

The comment is basically the same for all of them: "pedantically, for objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from ownership of the object/commodity". This comment comes after saying that the argument place in question can be an object, commodity, event or property, so it's hard to say what the punctilious follower of the gismu list is supposed to do with these words. Are they allowed to take objects or not?

If we search for "sumti-raising" we get those 15 plus xajmi and djica.

not sure why xajmi1 should be a property of x2.

Still it is possible of course. {lo ka xalbebna cu xajmi mi}

But do we need to specify it in the definition? What else can ce'u in xajmi1 refer to if not to x2 (this of course make xajmi3 unnecessary)?

May be we should specify 

1. "property" in x1 when it refers not to x2

2. "property" in x2, x3, x4, x5 when it refers not to x1

Revised simple gimste already says just "property" instead of "property of x1" so the item 2. has been applied already.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-09 2:07 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

There are other words that involve possession/transfer/exchange but for which the gismu list doesn't say anything explicitly about "sumti-raising", for example: claxu/pindi/ricfu/punji/sabji/jmina/dejni/jarco/lebna/cpacu/jbera/cuxna/vimcu/cpedu/mipri/sisku/sarji/cupra/dirce/ferti/xaksu/tisna/daspo/ralte

punji2 or punji3 being a property?

sabji2 = property of x3.

not sure how to use properties in {jmina}.

lebna2=property of x3

jbera2=property of x3?

cuxna2= any type, property of x1?

sarji. any examples with a property?

ferti2. is it to be a metaphor when property is used?

xaksu2?

tisna2?

ralte2 being a property sounds strange. {mi ralte lo ka bilma}? If so it should have a different gloss rather than just "to keep".

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima

not sure what jdima1 should connect to.

the price of getting (becoming a possesor of) an apple or the price of giving an apple (giving a possesion)?

x1 is what x3 must give up or endure in order to get x2 from x4. If it's a property, it should be a property of x3.

x2 could also be a property of x3.

/jerna/jinga/kargu

kargu1 - property of x2???

Right. For example "lo ka melbi cu kargu ko'a".  

/pleji

pleji4=property of pleji3

A case could be made for it being a property of x1, but maybe x3 wins just because it's closer.

/prali/vamji

i forgot how to use vamji4

lo te vamji ka'e pilno lo se vamji lo ve vamji

 

If we search for "sumti-raising" we get those 15 plus xajmi and djica.

not sure why xajmi1 should be a property of x2.

 xajmi1 probably shouldn't be a property. .  

Still it is possible of course. {lo ka xalbebna cu xajmi mi}

But do we need to specify it in the definition? What else can ce'u in xajmi1 refer to if not to x2 (this of course make xajmi3 unnecessary)?

xajmi3 is a property of xajmi1. There are several words with this place structure pattern: mansa/vajni/cfipu/cizra/fange/zdile/trina/melbi/cnino/slabu/dicra/zunti/prali

and quite a few others that could have been in that class as well but aren't: fanza/spaji/cinri/misno/xamgu?/xlali?/pluka?/rigni?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

punji2 or punji3 being a property?

With the "property as a portable possession" metaphor, punji2 could be a property of punji3. That's the metaphor we've been talking about for all those gismu where that the gismu list makes the "pedantically"comment.

With the "property as a location" metaphor, used for example in denpa3 and in xruti3 and xruti4 (or xruti2 and xruti3 with my preferred version of xruti), then it would be the other way around, punji3 a property of punji2:

doi nobli .e'o ko punji lo ka virnu kei lo mi risna

"Lord, put courage into my heart!"

lo skina pu punji mi lo ka gleki cinmo

"The movie put me in a happy mood." 

 

not sure how to use properties in {jmina}.

lo sfofa cu jmina lo ka se kufra kei lo kumfa

The sofa adds comfort to the room.

 

jbera2=property of x3?

Of x1 I would say.

 

cuxna2= any type, property of x1?

Yes (and in that case cuxna3 should also be a plural number of properties of x1. 

sarji. any examples with a property?

x4 could be a property of x1.

 

ferti2. is it to be a metaphor when property is used?

I don't think the line between metaphor and literalness is clear in all this.

  

xaksu2?

ko'a xaksu lo ka citno

 

tisna2?

ko'a tisna lo ka jgira 

ralte2 being a property sounds strange. {mi ralte lo ka bilma}? If so it should have a different gloss rather than just "to keep".

It doesn't work well with non-agentive properties such as bilma, you need an agentive property, a property that x1 could be responsible for keeping:

  ko'a ralte lo ka catke lo karce

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-11 1:41 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

canja/cerda/cirko/cnemu/dirba/dunda/friti/jdima

not sure what jdima1 should connect to.

the price of getting (becoming a possesor of) an apple or the price of giving an apple (giving a possesion)?

x1 is what x3 must give up or endure in order to get x2 from x4. If it's a property, it should be a property of x3.

x2 could also be a property of x3.

/jerna/jinga/kargu

kargu1 - property of x2???

Right. For example "lo ka melbi cu kargu ko'a".  

/pleji

pleji4=property of pleji3

A case could be made for it being a property of x1, but maybe x3 wins just because it's closer.

/prali/vamji

i forgot how to use vamji4

lo te vamji ka'e pilno lo se vamji lo ve vamji

I guess vamji4 has two ce'u linking to x2  and x3?

 

If we search for "sumti-raising" we get those 15 plus xajmi and djica.

not sure why xajmi1 should be a property of x2.

 xajmi1 probably shouldn't be a property. .  

Still it is possible of course. {lo ka xalbebna cu xajmi mi}

But do we need to specify it in the definition? What else can ce'u in xajmi1 refer to if not to x2 (this of course make xajmi3 unnecessary)?

xajmi3 is a property of xajmi1. There are several words with this place structure pattern: mansa/vajni/cfipu/cizra/fange/zdile/trina/melbi/cnino/slabu/dicra/zunti/prali

All of them are assigned "klesi3=Split property" class. 

and quite a few others that could have been in that class as well but aren't: fanza/spaji/cinri/misno/xamgu?/xlali?/pluka?/rigni?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-06-11 2:13 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

punji2 or punji3 being a property?

With the "property as a portable possession" metaphor, punji2 could be a property of punji3.

That's the metaphor we've been talking about for all those gismu where that the gismu list makes the "pedantically"comment.

With the "property as a location" metaphor, used for example in denpa3

done. denpa3 =property of x1 

and in xruti3 and xruti4 (or xruti2 and xruti3 with my preferred version of xruti),

done. {xruti} is absent from my list. {volve} (non-agentive {xruti}) is fixed.

 

then it would be the other way around, punji3 a property of punji2:

doi nobli .e'o ko punji lo ka virnu kei lo mi risna

"Lord, put courage into my heart!"

lo skina pu punji mi lo ka gleki cinmo

"The movie put me in a happy mood." 

done. punji= x1 places or puts x2 (located, property of x3) at x3 (located, property of x2).

 

not sure how to use properties in {jmina}.

lo sfofa cu jmina lo ka se kufra kei lo kumfa

The sofa adds comfort to the room.

done. Well, I guess jmina3 being a property of jmina2  is impossible?

 

jbera2=property of x3?

Of x1 I would say.

 

cuxna2= any type, property of x1?

Yes (and in that case cuxna3 should also be a plural number of properties of x1. 

fixed. cuxna=x1 chooses x2 (any type, property of x1) from complete set x3 (plural of same type as x2) 

sarji. any examples with a property?

x4 could be a property of x1.

 

ferti2. is it to be a metaphor when property is used?

I don't think the line between metaphor and literalness is clear in all this.

not sure how to use {ferti2}  as a property.

  

xaksu2?

ko'a xaksu lo ka citno

.uanai. I just can't add this example. I can consume energy but consume my property... May be better examples? This one is a metaphor and the one that I can't find analogies in English.

 

tisna2?

ko'a tisna lo ka jgira 

tisna = x1 fills with material x2 (property of x1); x2 pours into x1 

ralte2 being a property sounds strange. {mi ralte lo ka bilma}? If so it should have a different gloss rather than just "to keep".

It doesn't work well with non-agentive properties such as bilma, you need an agentive property, a property that x1 could be responsible for keeping:

  ko'a ralte lo ka catke lo karce

fixed. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

not sure how to use {ferti2}  as a property.

.e'u ko ferti lo ka xanri 

 

xaksu2?

ko'a xaksu lo ka citno

.uanai. I just can't add this example. I can consume energy but consume my property... May be better examples? This one is a metaphor and the one that I can't find analogies in English.

"Wasting one's youth" is a common metaphor though. 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

punji2 or punji3 being a property?

With the "property as a portable possession" metaphor, punji2 could be a property of punji3.

That's the metaphor we've been talking about for all those gismu where that the gismu list makes the "pedantically"comment.

With the "property as a location" metaphor, used for example in denpa3

done. denpa3 =property of x1

I notice that you have left only properties in most of the possession places, but I think that's wrong. The property-as-possession metaphor should be the secondary meaning, not the main one. The main meaning should be for the concrete possession. And the same should apply to the property-as-location metaphor. "dunda lo plise" is the basic sense, "dunda lo ka ponse lo plise" is a derived abstraction. "denpa fi lo panka" is the basic sense, "denpa fi lo ka zvati lo panka" is a derived abstraction.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

As of now I suggest that we have the following types:

1. "numeral"

2. "thing" (can be an object, an event but not a property). "thing" doesn't interact with other te sumti of the same brivla.

3. "property" (can have ce'u or may have ce'u omitted, thus it can always include "thing")

4. other subtypes of "thing": "sound", "text"

As of "located" it is to be replaced either with "property" of with "thing" where appropriate.

2014-06-14 21:29 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

punji2 or punji3 being a property?

With the "property as a portable possession" metaphor, punji2 could be a property of punji3.

That's the metaphor we've been talking about for all those gismu where that the gismu list makes the "pedantically"comment.

With the "property as a location" metaphor, used for example in denpa3

done. denpa3 =property of x1

I notice that you have left only properties in most of the possession places, but I think that's wrong.

Well, do you mean that there might be places that allow only "property" but not a "located"?

 

The property-as-possession metaphor should be the secondary meaning, not the main one.

I don't distinguish secondary and main meanings.

 

The main meaning should be for the concrete possession.

Then why not just state that our ad hoc term "property" denotes a place  where the main meaning is a non-{ce'u} place, and the secondary is a {ce'u}-place?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

As of now I suggest that we have the following types:

1. "numeral"

A numeral is a thing, and the abstraction it represents is a number.

zoi ke 5 ke cu nacle'u

"5" is a numeral.

li mu cu namcu

Five is a number.

 

2. "thing" (can be an object, an event but not a property). "thing" doesn't interact with other te sumti of the same brivla.

But a brivla always expresses a relationship among all of its sumti. Besides, even if we are talking about interactions with property arguments, the places for the thing-with-property will normally be places for things. How could we say that ckaji1 doesn't interact with ckaji2?  

3. "property" (can have ce'u or may have ce'u omitted, thus it can always include "thing")

By "omitted" do you mean not stated explicitly, or not present even implicitly? If you mean the first, that's fine, we can say that "lo ka ce'u broda" and "lo ka broda" both refer to the same property even though "ce'u" is omitted in the second one. But you must mean something else. Are you saying that "lo plise" is a property with "ce'u" omitted? 

 

I notice that you have left only properties in most of the possession places, but I think that's wrong.

Well, do you mean that there might be places that allow only "property" but not a "located"?

ckaji2 would be the prime candidate for that. There are lots of places that have traditionally been considered to be only for properties (mutce2, simlu2, etc.) I can see how these too could be repurposed, but that's a whole new discussion.

 

The property-as-possession metaphor should be the secondary meaning, not the main one.

I don't distinguish secondary and main meanings.

I meant we should not throw away the basic meanings in favor of more abstract extensions. It doesn't matter whether we call the extension secondary or not, it should not annihilate the original source meaning. 

The main meaning should be for the concrete possession.

Then why not just state that our ad hoc term "property" denotes a place  where the main meaning is a non-{ce'u} place, and the secondary is a {ce'u}-place?

But then wouldn't you be losing track of your original purpose for doing this? Wouldn't it be misleading to use "property" in a way that doesn't match the usual sense of that word?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

zoi ke 5 ke cu nacle'u

"5" is a numeral.

Actually... The Lojban is true, but the English should read "digit", not "numeral", "55" is a numeral too, but it's not a digit. "nacle'u" is "digit", and "nacysni" is better for "numeral".  

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Okay, for most possession ralbrivla I added "located" back, changed djeni4 to "property of x1".

Should kavbu2 be a property too ("I caught cold")?

All possession ralbrivla are under "klesi B Action. Possesion interactions". Please inform if I missed any.

So we have

1. number

2. property but not located

3. located but not property.

4. subtypes

So if we see any property place that can take a value which would never interact with other places then a "located" should be added as a possible type to it. 

The same for "located". If it can interact with other places then it is also a "property" (or only a "property").

2014-06-14 23:12 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

As of now I suggest that we have the following types:

1. "numeral"

A numeral is a thing, and the abstraction it represents is a number.

Sorry, then it should be 

1. "number"

 

zoi ke 5 ke cu nacle'u

"5" is a numeral.

li mu cu namcu

Five is a number.

 

2. "thing" (can be an object, an event but not a property). "thing" doesn't interact with other te sumti of the same brivla.

But a brivla always expresses a relationship among all of its sumti. Besides, even if we are talking about interactions with property arguments, the places for the thing-with-property will normally be places for things. How could we say that ckaji1 doesn't interact with ckaji2?  

3. "property" (can have ce'u or may have ce'u omitted, thus it can always include "thing")

By "omitted" do you mean not stated explicitly, or not present even implicitly? If you mean the first, that's fine, we can say that "lo ka ce'u broda" and "lo ka broda" both refer to the same property even though "ce'u" is omitted in the second one. But you must mean something else. Are you saying that "lo plise" is a property with "ce'u" omitted? 

 

I notice that you have left only properties in most of the possession places, but I think that's wrong.

Well, do you mean that there might be places that allow only "property" but not a "located"?

ckaji2 would be the prime candidate for that. There are lots of places that have traditionally been considered to be only for properties (mutce2, simlu2, etc.) I can see how these too could be repurposed, but that's a whole new discussion.

 

The property-as-possession metaphor should be the secondary meaning, not the main one.

I don't distinguish secondary and main meanings.

I meant we should not throw away the basic meanings in favor of more abstract extensions. It doesn't matter whether we call the extension secondary or not, it should not annihilate the original source meaning. 

The main meaning should be for the concrete possession.

Then why not just state that our ad hoc term "property" denotes a place  where the main meaning is a non-{ce'u} place, and the secondary is a {ce'u}-place?

But then wouldn't you be losing track of your original purpose for doing this? Wouldn't it be misleading to use "property" in a way that doesn't match the usual sense of that word?

for me "property" is a place that can interact with other places with {ce'u}.

 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Should kavbu2 be a property too ("I caught cold")?

I don't see why not. Most of the gloss words suggest kavbu2 is something that kavbu1 acquires intentionally, but "catch" can be unintentional. Presumably when kavbu2 is a property, kavbu3 would be one as well.