goat's legs

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

I don't really have the time nor the preparation to do this properly, but I
want to do a mini-rant against {ponse}.  Use with extreme caution.  I'm not
convinced we shouldn't rip the sucker out entirely, but I'll concede that's
probably a bad move.  Even as E-Primeniks say that "to be" is too vague to
be used, I say that "to have/{ponse}" is as well (yes, I don't agree with
E-primeniks in general, but their theory has a kernel of truth).  It's just
*so* easy to use {ponse} and never say what it means.  Oh, sure, we all
*know* that when you have a cold in Lojban you are {bilma fi la kold.}, but
I'll bet you that someone real soon will try {ponse la kold.}.  Already we
have {ponse lo tuple}, which is very malglico.  Lojban is supposed to be a
well-defined language.  Exactly what does {ponse} mean?  Legally possess?
OK, but if I can't remember who picked up my book when I dropped it, would
I say {xu do ponse le cukta pe mi}?  You don't legally possess it!  To be
holding or otherwise carrying?  We have {jgari} and {bevri} (the latter
probably wrong in most situations, admittedly).  To be somehow associated
with it?  We have {stici}.  Could you say {mi ponse le ka melbi} for "I
have the quality of beauty"?  No!  Apart from the obvious but not quite
equivalent {mi melbi}, there's {mi ckaji le ka melbi}.  That's what {ckaji}
is for.  But that won't stop people from using {ponse}.

I'll bet there is a case out there for which {ponse} is required, and I'm
sure someone will quote it for me, but I still think it should be used
*very* sparingly.

More if I feel like ranting later...

~mark