Lesson 18
pabimoi seltadni
Possession
nunponse
18.1
On po and po'e
me zo po .e zo po'e
We will cover two more members of selma'o GOI at this time, "po" and
"po'e". These two elements deal with an aspect related to
identification: possession.
In Lojban, we recognize two distinction types of possession:
- alienable;
- inalienable.
We'll define these in a moment.
The definition of possession is probably too culturally oriented to
make a clean line between possession and other relationships, or even
among various types of possession. We must allow for possession to be
taken in the broadest sense - the set of all things, states,
properties, etc. which may pertain to a person or be identified with a
person in any way, at any time. This obviously goes far beyond legal
ownership. Yet, we must allow for people who want a narrower
definition.
Let us look at some possible 'possessions' under a fairly broad
definition. The following are typical things that might be
'possessed'.
- a book;
- a house;
- an arm;
- a brain;
- a heart;
- a book you have written;
- an address;
- a name;
- an idea;
- a kiss;
- love.
You can legally own a book. You can be holding a book which you may
or may not legally own. The book may be located near you, such that
it can identified by the fact that it is near you. In all these
cases, the book may be said to be yours. Some of these relationships
are definitely 'possession' relationships, some are borderline, and
some are 'possessions' only in the weakest sense.
The weakest form can be demonstrated by putting a book in front of
each (of several) person(s) which is not legally owned by that person.
Clearly you can then tell George to pick up 'his' book, and he will
know what you mean. Does he possess the book (before he picks it up)?
[I - The instructor may want to quickly act out these types of
possession.]
All of these ways of possessing a book are called 'alienable
possession'. Alienable possession refers to any object, state, or
property which you possess, or which pertains to you, for which that
possession is not inherently permanent. In Lojban, something may be
considered a 'possession' if it pertains or is relevant to you in any
way; eventually usage may set some standards. The possession is
'alienable' if there are conditions in which that possession or
relevance ceases. If there is some relationship under all conditions,
the possession is 'inalienable'.
If it can be taken away from you such that it is not yours, it is
alienable. A book which you legally own is yours, but if you sell it
or give it away, it is no longer 'your' book. If it is stolen, it is
your book only in the sense that you might eventually get it back.
The same is true for almost any other type of possession in the
physical or legal sense. You live in a house. Whether you legally
own it or not, it can be said to be 'your house'. 'Your address' fits
the same constraints, even though it is not physical, and cannot be
legally owned. If you move away from your house, it is no longer
'yours'.
On the other hand, your arm is 'inalienably' yours. If John were to
chop of his arm and hand it to me, it would still be "John's arm". It
could be burned or otherwise destroyed, but we would still think of it
as John's arm. Even after John is dead, it is still 'his arm'. No
legal, physical, or emotional means can take it away in this alienable
sense.
In general, body parts are inalienable, but there are some fuzzy
aspects. If John dies, and his heart is transplanted into another
person, it is still John's heart in one sense; in this sense it is an
inalienable possession. It is also the heart of the new 'owner', as
well. John's blood remains inalienably his in one sense, even when
donated. But when mixed with other blood, that identity is lost. The
blood is no longer 'his', though individual blood cells might be
thought of in this way.
Most intangibles are inalienable. Your ideas remain yours in some
sense, though they may not be recognized by some people as yours.
Your actions are yours. If you kiss another person, it is still your
kiss. Emotions are inalienable; this is how we can talk about 'giving
away love' and still having it.
If brains are ever transplanted, there will be questions as to whose
brain it is after the transplant. The answer will probably depend on
how people think about it. This reveals something important about
possession: the division between alienable and inalienable is
distinct, but it is culturally based.
Since the lines between types of possession are culturally defined, we
must be able to talk of any possession as if it were alienable or
inalienable, or to refer to it as holding a relationship that is not a
true 'possessive'. The distinctions, while sometimes cultural, are
important enough to rate assigning separate words to each type.
We use "po" to attach an identification to a sumti of an 'owner' for
which the possession is alienable or ambiguous. We use "po'e" to
identify ownership as inalienable. The speaker is the one who draws
the line as to whether the possession is alienable or not. We also
have "pe", discussed in the next section, for relationships of
relevance that we cannot, or do not want to, classify as
"possessions".
Thus, at least in our culture, we might say:
le birka [ku] po'e la djan. "The arm of John"; "John's arm"
le cukta [ku] po mi "The book of me", "my book"
Note that we did not translate the latter as 'the book of mine'. "The
book of me" in English could be a book about me or a book which I own.
The translation is accurate; either type of relationship to the book
could be described as a possession of a sort, and thus as "le cukta
[ku] po mi" in Lojban. "po" is a weak form of possession; it
identifies only by saying that the relative sumti in some way
considered to be a possession by the relativized sumti. "po'e" makes
the stronger identification of inalienable possession.
18.2
On pe
me zo pe
We have solved nearly all problems associated with "po'u"; two
important ones remain to haunt us. How can we express a restriction
which involves time and location tenses? How can we restrict using a
sumti without implying any of the cultural connotations of possession?
Let us look at an example of the former from English.
Time and space associations are among a set of loose associations that
are sometimes hard to distinguish from possession in English. If you
take five people and put a book on the floor in front of each, in
English you might tell someone to get "John's book" to refer to the
book in front of John. Yet John's only association with the book is
one of location.
In Lojban, we could use the tagged sumti "va la djan." to locate the
book, but how do we attach this sumti as a restriction:
- we could use a bridi with "poi" as stated above: "poi jibni la
djan." This is fine for simple tenses but will prove unwieldy for
more complex ones;
- we would prefer not to use "po" or "po'e", attempting to reserve
these specifically for relationships that can be described as
possession;
- we cannot use "po'u"; "va la djan." is not another identity for the
book; it doesn't identify the book at all, except in a relative
sense.
The latter can be made clear by expanding the complete sumti to its corresponding form with "du":
?le cukta po'u va la djan.
becomes:
le cukta poi ke'a du va la djan.
Remember that "va la djan." is a sumti that is implicitly not part of
the normal place structure of du. If we say:
le cukta cu du va la djan.
we mean an ellipsized:
le cukta cu du zo'e va la djan.
We are holding that the (ellipsized) identification is valid in a
noteworthy way when "near John" is applicable to the bridi
relationship, suggesting perhaps that the relationship may not be
valid when not near John.
A separate cmavo in GOI is used for expressing this sort of
generalized restrictive relationship. The word is "pe", and it joins
a relative sumti onto another sumti, just as all other members of GOI
do. Unlike all of the other GOI members that we have seen so far,
"pe" doesn't make any implication about the nature of the restriction.
Time- or location-tagged modifier sumti are among the most frequent
restrictions attached with "pe"; others are permitted, especially when
you wish to avoid using a possessive in a way which might erroneously
imply ownership. Specific usage is up to the speaker; the definition
and significance of 'possession' is probably too culturally-oriented
to attempt to dictate what is attached with "po", and what is attached
with "pe". Just remember that "po'u" is not applicable unless you are
satisfied that both sumti are in themselves alternate designations for
the referent.
Let us look at some examples of how we can use "pe" to attach a
restriction to something by associating it with a time or a place.
For the relative sumti, we use a time- or location-tagged modifier
sumti.
The modifier may be either completely expressed, or it may be
elliptical:
le cukta [ku]
"the book which is located at the table"
"the book on the table"
le cukta [ku] {pe (pu [ku]) [ge'u]}
"the book which is associated with being before something (unspecified)"
"the former book"
Some interesting variations on tense inflections can be obtained with "pe":
mi [cu] pu tcidu le cukta [ku]
mi pu tcidu le cukta
"I previously-eat the food."
"I ate the food."
mi pe pu [ku] [ge'u] [cu] tcidu le cukta [ku]
mi pe pu tcidu le cukta
"The me which is associated with the previous-to-something eats the food."
"I ate the food."
The first sentence emphasizes the eating as being in the past; this
places the event of eating in the past, and emphasizes the former
nature of the relationships involved in eating. This is because of
the close similarity between the tense inflection and a tense-tagged
modifier sumti.
The second sentence places the "me" who is doing the eating in the
past. In addition to placing emphasis on that particular sumti, it
heightens the implication that the un-modified sumti may not be true:
the 'current me' may not be eating. Neither of the two sentences
claims anything about the present. By emphasizing the past when tense
omission is the norm, they make implications about the present.
The examples given may seem stilted to English speakers. There are a
few English constructions that use tensed 'possessions' in a way that
seems natural. "Tomorrow's leaders" could translate as:
"le ba lidne"
Similarly, "the wonders of tomorrow" could be expressed as:
"le se manci pe ba"
Besides attaching tagged sumti as relative phrases restricting a
sumti, "pe" is also used whenever we want to restrict a sumti by
attaching a relative sumti which is closely associated with the
relativized sumti, but which is not truly 'possessed' by the relative
sumti. Many phrases that are expressed as possessives in English
should use "pe" rather than "po". You thus use "le cukta pe la djan."
to refer to a book that may incidentally be near John, or which he is
holding, rather than the stronger possessive "le cukta po la djan."
18.3
An Example Dialog
mupli nuncasnu
Following is a dialog which uses some of the relative clause and
phrase features discussed in this sublesson. The instructor may
choose to have students act it out, as practice in using relative
clauses. The dialog is given first without translation, so that you
can first attempt to understand it on your own.
.alis.: xu do djuno le se zvati pe la fred. doi rik.
rik.: la fred. ki'a
.alis.: mi djica la fred. poi lojbo tadni ku ku le nu cpedu zo'e
rik.: mi .ia kakne le nu te cpedu
.alis.: na go'i .i .ua la fred. ca klama .i co'o doi rik.
rik.: co'o. .alis.
.alis.: doi fred. .i ko denpa mi
fred.: mi denpa
.alis.: doi fred. .i xu do djuno le jbena detri po'e la rik.
fred.: .ia go'i .i li rere pi'eci
.alis.: ki'e doi fred. .i mi djica le nu le pendo po la rik.
cu jikca penmi la rik. ca le
detri .i ko mipri le nu penmi kei la rik.
fred.: .ai
18.4
Translation Of The Example Dialog
mupli nuncasnu xe fanva
.alis.: xu do djuno le se zvati pe la fred. doi rik.
Is-it-true-that you know the at-place relating-to Fred, O Rick?
rik.: la fred. ki'a
Fred who?
.alis.: mi djica la fred. poi lojbo tadni ku ku le nu cpedu zo'e
I want the Fred who Lojban studies, in order to do the act-of
requesting (something unspecified).
rik.: mi .ia kakne le nu te cpedu
I (certainly) can do the act-of receiving-requests.
.alis.: na go'i .i .ua la fred. ca klama .i co'o doi rik.
It is not so. (Discovery) Fred is now coming. 'Bye, O Rick.
rik.: co'o. .alis.
'Bye, Alice.
.alis.: doi fred. .i ko denpa mi
O Fred, wait-for me.
fred.: mi denpa
I wait.
.alis.: doi fred. .i xu do djuno le jbena detri po'e la rik.
O Fred, is-it-true-that you know the born date of Rick?
fred.: .ia go'i .i li rere pi'eci
(Certainly) It is so. 22 [day] 3 [month].
.alis.: ki'e doi fred. .i mi djica le nu le pendo po la rik.
cu penmi la rik. ca le detri
.i ko mipri le nu jikca penmi kei la rik.
Thanks, O Fred. I want the act-of the friend(s) of
Rick meeting Rick on the date.
Keep-secret the act-of socially meeting from Rick.
fred.: .ai
(Aye, Intention).
18.5
On da
me zo da
We have been using "zo'e", the 'elliptical sumti', as a place holder
in bridi for several lessons. We usually translate this as "something
(unspecified)". The ambiguity in this English translation is
heightened by the vague nature of the English word "something". The
word is strictly a place- holder and not truly a pro-sumti because
"zo'e" used in other sumti places does not refer to the same sumti
value.
"zo'e" has a specific meaning: there is a particular something that
the speaker has in mind to fill in the place held by "zo'e", but for
some reason the speaker is not specifying it. This might be to de-
emphasize the place or possibly because the speaker can't or chooses
not to describe what she/he has in mind.
There is another meaning to the English word "something", one which is
legitimately a pronoun. This meaning is what is often called the
'existential' pronoun. Logicians use it frequently in such sentences
as: "There exists something x, such that x is a book.", or more
briefly "Something is a book." The existential pronoun "something"
does not imply that the speaker has anything particular in mind to
fill the value; it merely states that the universe contains one or
more possible replacements for the variable, and says nothing about
the possible replacement(s) other than that it(they) is(are) book(s).
Lojban has a separate series of words to cover the existential meaning
of "something". These are the da-series of selma'o KOhA: "da", "de",
and "di", which can be translated as "some x1", "some x2", and "some
x3", which should not be confused with the sumti place-labels.
Logicians use the letter designations to indicate that existential
pronouns are variables; the specific term used for members of the
da-series is 'bound variables'. (Lojban does provide for an
indefinite additional number of bound variables beyond these 3 by
explicitly using subscripts; this is described in a later lesson.)
As implied above, "da" is a true pro-sumti. Once used in a reference,
it holds its value indefinitely. If we say:
mi klama zo'e zo'e
"I go to somewhere from somewhere."
we might be referring to separate places. If we say:
mi klama da da
we refer to "something" that is both origin and destination.
On the other hand, the "zo'e" version could be referring to the same
place - it is not forbidden. The same is true if two different
existentials are use:
mi klama da de
does not imply that "de" refers to something different than "da",
although it explicitly allows the possibility.
Note that this meaning of "something" also includes "someone"; there
is no implication whether the variable is an object or a person in:
"For some x, x is covered with cloth." In English, however, we cannot
help but infer constraints on 'x' in statements like "There exists
some x, such that x is a book." (more colloquially: "There is
something (x1) which is a book." or even "Something is a book.") It
doesn't seem likely to that we can use "someone" in any of these
phrasings. The Lojban equivalent explicitly denotes that no such
constraints may be assumed: "da" is not restricted from being a person
in "da cukta". The next section will discuss how to constrain
existential variables.
There is one significant semantic difference between the da-series and
other members of selma'o KOhA that justifies use of separate lexemes.
The 'transformational' difference is in the way that quantification
(e.g. "pa da" vs. "pa do") is interpreted.
In review, in a description such as: "pa le ci mensi" ("one of the
three sisters"), the second quantifier ("ci") indicates the number in
the set being described as sisters; the first quantifier merely
selects from that set. Remember also that cmavo of KOhA by themselves
imply nothing directly about number; they may be either singular or
plural.
When other members of selma'o KOhA are quantified, it does not resolve
the question of singular vs. plural. In "pa do", "do" is presumed to
be a known referent, and the sumti is literally translated as "one of
you" and not "you (singular)"; there could be more than one of you,
but only one is being referred to. This is same as the first
quantifier in the 'sisters example.
Unlike KOhA and "le" descriptions, when a member of the da-series is
first used, it has no particular referent; it is not yet 'bound' to
anything specific, but could refer to anything or anybody in the
universe, and it might refer to any number of things or persons.
Attaching a quantifier constrains an unbound "da" or "de" or "di",
binding it to some subset of the entire universe. Such a quantifier
thus specifies the number in the subset. "pa da" is singular; it
means "one something x1", and not "one of the somethings x1".
Alternatively, you can think of "pa da" meaning "one of all
'somethings' in the universe", which, while stilted, recalls the
unbound nature of "da". The usage of the da-series in logic makes the
binding of "da" an enumeration of the set being referred to.
We can use this property of the da-series to quantify a variety of
things without otherwise describing them. For example, to enumerate
whether "mi" is singular or plural, we might say:
mi goi pa da
"I/we who am/are one something"
"I (singular)"
mi goi su'ore da
"I/we who am/are at least two somethings"
"I (plural)"
Quantified da-series cmavo can also be used in a regular bridi in ways
that will seem unusual to English speakers. If we want to say: "The
table has four legs." in Lojban, we do not want to use "ponse" to
translate "has". The relationship isn't really one of possession in
the normal sense of the word, and the use of "ponse" invites debate on
whether that is the relationship that applies. The brivla "tuple" is
sufficient, and emphasizes that "legs" are what we are talking about,
not possession:
le jubme se tuple vo da
"The table is be-legged by four somethings."
or its inverse:
vo da tuple le jubme
"Four somethings are-legs of the table."
Note that once "da" has been enumerated, or constrained in any way, it
is now 'bound'. Quantification must then be treated as for any other
specific sumti - it selects a smaller subset from the now constrained
subset of the universe. Thus:
le jubme se tuple vo da .i pa da crino
"The table is be-legged by four somethings. One of them (the legs) is green."
18.6
On da poi
me lo'u da poi le'u
The "da" usage of "something" is not common in English; there is
usually some constraint that we wish to put on the variable - there is
some concept we have in mind. "da" is used a lot more in Lojban due
to its special quantificational property just described. We need,
however, to be able to express "someone", thus implying a person, as
opposed to the vaguer "some x1". How might we do this? We could
express such a specific pronoun with "ko'a"-series variables and
"goi":
?ko'a goi le prenu
This is valid grammatically; it presumes, though, that we know who "le
prenu" is. It states that "ko'a" will be used to refer to the one
being described as a person. This is a constraint on "ko'a", but not
really the one we want.
What we really want to do is define a restriction on "da" or one of
its relatives. We can do this straightforwardly using "poi":
da poi prenu cu klama "Something which is a person comes." "Someone
comes."
We can now say that a table has four green legs:
le jubme se tuple vo da poi crino "The table is be-legged by four
somethings such that they are green."
Note that this again binds "da" and later quantifications select a
subset from the four that are referred to by "da".
18.7
An Activity
selzukte
If the class is not reasonably comfortable with the vocabulary and
grammar presented so far, the instructor may want to skip this
activity for now, possibly going back to it in a few lessons. It can
easily come to involve considerable spontaneous usage, for which the
class may not be ready. On the other hand, it might be worth trying
simply to see how close the class is to being ready to try spontaneous
conversation.
The instructor should practice this exercise with a partner ahead of
time, planning out where to put the various objects, and writing out
some sample sentences ahead of time which use the various grammatical
points raised.
For this activity, you need several objects, some of which are very
similar or identical. These should be placed around the room. The
instructor should then use sentences using relative clauses of various
types in order to ask students to get particular items. The following
examples use a series of sentences involving books:
ko cpacu le cukta po'u la baibl.
ko dunda le cukta le ninmu poi pritu la djan.
ko cpacu le cukta po la carlet.
ko cpacu le cukta pe vi le loldi
ko jgari le cukta le pritu birka po'e do
18.8
Incidental Relative Clauses and Phrases
***
Recall that we defined "po'u" as reflecting one variety of "du" bridi, specifically one in which the
right side restrictively identifies an unknown qleft side:
"la djil. du mi"
"The one called Jill is identical to me."
"la djil. po'u mi"
"The one called Jill who is identical to me ..."
In these examples, Jill is presumably not known to the listener, but
certainly the listener can tell who is speaking (We will ignore the
complications of the vagueness of "mi" and presume that there is a
single speaker who is the obvious referent of "mi".)
We said earlier that "po'u" is not entirely symmetric in the same way
"du" is, in that the reversal of the second expression no longer makes
sense as a restrictive phrase:
"mi du la djil."
"I am identical to the one called Jill."
"mi po'u la djil."
"I who am restricted to the one called Jill ..."
Given our assumption of the one plausible interpretation of "mi", the
identification as Jill is unnecessary as a restriction. Instead of
restricting, the phrase really is merely providing additional
information about "mi".
This type of relative phrase is called a incidental (or
non-restrictive) relative phrase. These occur in English, as well as
in most (but not all) other languages.
In Lojban, we want to make clear when a relative clause or phrase is
providing useful identification or restriction, and when it is merely
conveying incidental information. The semantic distinction can be
seen in an American English example of restrictive vs. incidental
clauses:
"The man who came to dinner is a friend."
"The man, who came to dinner, is a friend."
The first sentence has a restrictive clause; the man is identified as
the one who came to dinner (as opposed to some other man). The second
phrase is incidental. To an American English listener, the impression
is given that the speaker believes that the listener already knows who
the man is, and is just mentioning in passing that he came to dinner.
(The emphasis on American English is due to the standard British
usage, which has commas around both restrictive and incidental
clauses, so that there is no way to tell the difference.)
A incidental relative clause is logically identical to two separate
sentences. In the above example, these are:
"The man came to dinner. The man is a friend."
Because of this equation, a sentence with a incidental relative clause
is false if either the main predication or the relative predication is
false.
Since a restrictive relative clause serves only to identify the
relativized phrase, it doesn't really affect the truth value of the
main predication of the sentence, so long as it adequately restricts
the relativized phrase.
Assuming that the distinction is now clear, how do you distinguish
between restrictive and incidental relative clauses and phrases. The
answer is simple; the cmavo used for non-restrictive (incidental)
clauses and phrases starts with 'n', instead of 'p'. Thus the above
example of a incidental phrase should have been:
"mi du la djil."
"I am identified as the one called Jill."
My name is Jill.
"mi no'u la djil."
"I, who am incidentally the one called Jill, ..."
The relative clause examples may be expressed as:
"le nanmu poi klama le vanci sanmi cu pendo"
"The man who came to dinner is a friend."(American)
"The man, who came to dinner, is a friend."(British)
"le nanmu noi klama le vanci sanmi cu pendo"
"The man, who came to dinner, is a friend."
which is equivalent to:
"le nanmu cu klama le vanci sanmi .i ra pendo"
"The man came to dinner. The man is a friend."
There is a subtle semantic difference between the combined incidental
sentence and the two separate sentences. While they are logically
equivalent, the incidental expression subordinates the one sentence to
the other. It is less important, perhaps only incidental information;
in any case, the speaker is for some reason de-emphasizing it. With
two separate sentences, there is no reason to presume that the two
bridi are not equally important. In fact, in the order presented, the
intended subordinate clause might be taken as the more important
point, since in general a more important statement is expressed before
a less important one (unless there is some other reason for the
ordering such as causality or time ordering).
The distinction between restrictive and incidental clauses is one of
the trickiest points of English grammar, partly due to the similarity
between their expressions. In learning Lojban, the vital importance
of relative clauses and phrases makes understanding the difference
even more important, yet Lojban's distinctions make the two concepts
much easier to understand and distinguish. Do you agree?
Of the cmavo for relative clauses and phrases we have thus far
discussed, only "poi", "pe", and "po'u" have incidental equivalents;
as you would expect, they are "noi", "ne", and "no'u"). The other
two, "po", and "po'e", are used in particular for restricting in ways
that are both necessary and common. Their corresponding incidental
equivalents are not especially significant to expression, and do not
justify the use of three cmavo to express them. Instead, you can use
"noi" followed by an appropriate bridi to express these as incidental
clauses.
Examples
"la pasifik. noi xamsi cu stici la .iunaitydsteits."
"The Pacific, which is incidentally an ocean, i
s to the west of the United States."
"le stici be la .iunaited. steits. xamsi no'u la pasifik. cu barda"
"The west-of-the-United-States-ocean,
incidentally identified as the Pacific, is big."
"lemi re kanla noi blanu cu kalri"
"My two eyes, which are blue, are open."
"ledo kanla poi blanu cu kalri .i ledo kanla poi bunre cu ganlo"
"Your eye which is blue is open. Your eye which is brown is closed."