History: Oog

Source of version: 2 (current)

The funny little noise you make when your brain breaks. ''Is this just ''.oiro'e'' in Lojban, or something more extreme?'' Hrm. Probably closer to ''.oiro'ero'oru'e'' as there is a small amount of eyes bugging out dangerously, and the drooling can get unpleasent. ''... .oiro'e it is then. :-)'' ((pne|I)) like ''le stedu po'e mi pe'a carna''. (Though I don't know why ((jbofi'e)) groups the {pe'a} with the {mi} when the ((ma'oste)) says it means "__start__ figurative (non-literal) speech/text".) * Is ''le stedu po'e mi'' different from ''le stedu be mi''? More generally, is ''le broda po'e ko'a'' ever different from ''le broda be f* ko'a'' (usually ''fe'')? ** If I understand you correctly, your question boils down to "is it true that ''le broda po'e ko'a'' only makes sense in the cases where the "ownership" is so obvious that it was already provided for as a place value of ''broda''"? Not sure whether that's true or not; I can't think of a counterexample, though. (That's not saying much, though.) --mi'e ((filip)) *** Yes, that's what I was getting at. All bodyparts have the place structure 'x1 is a <bodypart> of x2', and that's basically what ''po'e'' would in principle be used for. That means that ''po'e'' will never be needed in its central meaning, only for doubtful or metaphorical uses. But a word that is never used with its central meaning is very odd. --((xorxes)) *** Other examples I thought of were an author and his book [[as in, it'll always be "his" book even though he may not own a physical copy] (I think this might have been from the lessons), but that's x3 of ''cukta''; also, family relationships (which were also an example of an inalienable relationship) have the "is a brother/father/son of x''n''" in their place structure. But your comments do give food for thought. --mi'e ((filip)) * ''pe'a'' changed selma'o at some point. The ((ma'oste)) may be out of date. ** (See note in ((unassigned cmavo)). Note also that the ma'oste as currently downloadable says "marks a construct as figurative (non-literal/metaphorical) speech/text") According to the book, page 322: ''The cmavo "pe'a" is the indicator of figurative speech, indicating that the previous word should be taken figuratively rather than literally'' *** ''.ua ki'e do'' I see. Yes, I have the ma'oste marked "06/13/94 . Updated cosmetically by Robin Powell 13 May 2002". If ''pe'a'' is UI, then the placement after the word makes sense. (FWIW, pe'a/po'a used to be selma'o PEhA/POhA) --((pne)) How about ''le stedu be mi cu carna pe'a'', then? I've also seen ''mi cortu le stedu'' on the mailing list.