Forum: WikiDiscuss

Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 2388

Yes, the law in its full force is messy and would require (and would create) a language all its own. Conversational language, however, makes fewer distinctions (as do laws of other countries and societies — or more, but certainly different) and this vague one between "mine to use" and "owned by me" seems to be the most active one (even though several people might claim either of these on various grounds).

John Cowan wrote:Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > {po} indicates possession in the sense of current or regular use,
> > but not necessarily legal ownership
> Isn't that what it says now?
> Or do you want it to mean *physical* possesssion?
> > {po'e} indicates legal ownership (under the contextually relevant laws).
> Umm, no, sorry. That's a major change, and I won't support it.

What counts as "legal ownership" is in any case extremely messy. Anglo-
American law recognizes two kinds of ownership (legal and equitable)
and two kinds of possession (possession proper and natural detention).
These usually all subsist in the same person, but not necessarily.

Suppose that Alice gives a valuable object to Bob in trust for Carol.
Carol then lends the object to Dave, but unfortunately it is stolen by
Mallory before Dave can return it. Now Bob has legal title, Carol has
equitable title, Dave has possession, and Mallory has natural detention.
Each of them has a distinct set of legal rights and duties as a result.

John Cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"


The original document is available at