BPFK Section: Subordinators

[Gleki Arxokuna]

po is often used for the standard sense of possession, i.e. physical or legal ownership. It is essentially equivalent to poi traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a vau fa.

{fa}? How can it be "equivalent"? Anyway why is it glossed as "specific to" which hints at {steci}?

po'e is used for things like people's limbs or parental relationships or other inalienable things. It is essentially equivalent to poi jinzi ke se steci srana.

This tanru should be replaced with some no-tanru definition like xorxe's {poi ke'a se jinzi le ka ce'u se steci le ka ce'u srana}.

[Alex Burka]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

po is often used for the standard sense of possession, i.e. physical or legal ownership. It is essentially equivalent to poi traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a vau fa.

{fa}? How can it be "equivalent"? Anyway why is it glossed as "specific to" which hints at {steci}?

As in {ko'a po ko'e} == {ko'a poi traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a vau fa ko'e} == {ko'a poi ko'e traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a}. 

po'e is used for things like people's limbs or parental relationships or other inalienable things. It is essentially equivalent to poi jinzi ke se steci srana.

This tanru should be replaced with some no-tanru definition like xorxe's {poi ke'a se jinzi le ka ce'u se steci le ka ce'u srana}.

ie .i va'o lo nu no da pante kei mi baza stika 

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

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-12-04 17:34 GMT+03:00 Alex Burka <abu...@seas.upenn.edu>:

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

po is often used for the standard sense of possession, i.e. physical or legal ownership. It is essentially equivalent to poi traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a vau fa.

{fa}? How can it be "equivalent"? Anyway why is it glossed as "specific to" which hints at {steci}?

As in {ko'a po ko'e} == {ko'a poi traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a vau fa ko'e} == {ko'a poi ko'e traji lo ka ce'u ckini ke'a}. 

How can you comment on such gloss as "specific"?

[Alex Burka]

It seems acceptable for a one-word gloss. You aren't going to get the best translation in one word. Do you have a better gloss?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

According to another xorxe's definition {po} is expanded into 
po = [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana

[Ilmen]

On 04/12/2014 19:07, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

According to another xorxe's definition {po} is expanded into 
po = [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana

In the BPFK Section "Subordinators", {pe X} is defined as {poi ke'a srana X}.
If {po X} is defined as "poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana X", then I don't see much the difference with {pe} as defined in the BPFK section.

However I think {pe X} would be better defined as {poi ke'a X co'e}, to have a better parallel with co'e / zo'e / xo'e / do'e / tu'a / zo'ei.

I used to assume that {po X} was synonymous with {poi X ke'a ponse}, maybe wrongly.

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.

[guskant]

Le vendredi 5 décembre 2014 07:46:43 UTC+9, Ilmen a écrit :

On 04/12/2014 19:07, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

According to another xorxe's definition {po} is expanded into 
po = [GOI] poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana

In the BPFK Section "Subordinators", {pe X} is defined as {poi ke'a srana X}.
If {po X} is defined as "poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana X", then I don't see much the difference with {pe} as defined in the BPFK section.

However I think {pe X} would be better defined as {poi ke'a X co'e}, to have a better parallel with co'e / zo'e / xo'e / do'e / tu'a / zo'ei.

I agree. I asked once a related question:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/wvLz7Ew6bzI/discussion

{poi ke'a X co'e} is better as a definition of {pe X} in order to let {pe SUMSMI} have a reasonable meaning.

However, we should make explicit that both this definition and the current BPFK's definition {poi ke'a srana X} contradict the CLL description in Chapter 9, Section 10:

"Example 10.5 and Example 10.6 have the full semantic content of Example 10.1 and Example 10.2 respectively." as I wrote in my second post in the thread above, for example:

{pe cu'u ry} = {poi ke'a co'e cu'u ry} 

it is similar to {poi ry cusku fi'o co'e ke'a}, but not equal to {poi ry cusku ke'a}.

 

I used to assume that {po X} was synonymous with {poi X ke'a ponse}, maybe wrongly.

I rather prefer your assumption to {poi ke'a se steci le ka ce'u srana}, though, in any case, I will obey the final decision of BPFK.