3. Relative phrases

   pe  GOI restrictive association
    po  GOI restrictive possession
    po'e    GOI restrictive intrinsic possession
    po'u    GOI restrictive identification
    ne  GOI incidental association
    no'u    GOI incidental identification
    ge'u    GEhU    relative phrase terminator

3.1)  le stizu pe mi cu blanu
    The chair associated-with me is-blue.
    My chair is blue.

3.2)   le stizu poi ke'a srana mi
        cu blanu
    The chair such-that( IT is-associated-with me)
        is-blue.

In Example 3.1 and Example 3.2, the link between the chair and the speaker is of the loosest kind.

Here is an example of ``po'':

3.3)  le stizu po mi cu xunre
    The chair specific-to me is red.

3.4)   le stizu poi
        ke'a se steci srana mi cu xunre
    The chair such-that
        (IT is-specifically associated-with me) is-red.

As a result, the relationship expressed between two sumti by ``po'' is usually called ``possession'', although it does not necessarily imply ownership, legal or otherwise. The central concept is that of specificity (``steci'' in Lojban).

Here is an example of ``po'e'', as well as another example of ``po'':

3.5)  le birka po'e mi cu spofu
    The arm intrinsically-possessed-by me is-broken

3.6)   le birka poi
        jinzi ke se steci srana mi
        cu spofu
    The arm which
        is-intrinsically (specifically associated-with) me
        is-broken

3.7)   le botpi po mi cu spofu
    The bottle specific-to me is-broken

By contrast, the bottle of Example 3.7 can be given away, or thrown away, or lost, or stolen, so it is possessed extrinsically (alienably). The exact line between intrinsic and extrinsic possession is culturally dependent. The U.S. Declaration of Independence speaks of the ``inalienable rights'' of men, but just what those rights are, and even whether the concept makes sense at all, varies from culture to culture.

Note that Example 3.5 can also be expressed without a relative clause:

3.8)  le birka be mi cu spofu
    The arm of-body me is broken

Here is an example of ``po'u'':

3.9)  le gerku po'u le mi pendo cu cinba mi
    The dog which-is my friend kisses me.

3.10) le gerku poi du le mi pendo cu cinba mi
    The dog which = my friend kisses me.

In Example 3.9, the use of ``po'u'' tells us that ``le gerku'' and ``le mi pendo'' represent the same thing. Consider the contrast between Example 3.9 and:

3.11)    le mi pendo po'u le gerku cu cinba mi
    My friend which-is the dog kisses me.

Example 3.11, however, assumes that the listener does not know which of the speaker's friends is referred to, and specifies that it is the friend that is the dog (which dog is taken to be obvious). Here is another example of the same contrast:

3.12)    le tcadu po'u la nu,iork
    The city of New York [not another city].

3.13) la nu,iork po'u le tcadu
    New York the city (not the state or some other New York)

3.14)    le kabri pe le mi pendo cu cmalu
    The cup associated-with my friend is small.
    My friend's cup is small

3.15)    le mi pendo pe le kabri cu cmalu
    My friend associated-with the cup is small.
    My friend, the one with the cup, is small.

Finally, the cmavo ``ne'' and ``no'u'' stand to ``pe'' and ``po'u'', respectively, as ``noi'' does to ``poi'' --- they provide incidental information:

3.16)    le blabi gerku ne mi cu batci do
    The white dog, incidentally-associated-with me,
        bites you.
    The white dog, which is mine, bites you.

In Example 3.16, the white dog is already fully identified (after all, presumably the listener know which dog bit him or her!). The fact that it is yours is merely incidental to the main bridi claim.

Distinguishing between ``po'u'' and ``no'u'' can be a little tricky. Consider a room with several men in it, one of whom is named Jim. If you don't know their names, I might say:

3.17)    le nanmu no'u la djim. cu terpemci
    The man, incidentally-who-is Jim, is-a-poet.
    The man, Jim, is a poet.

Here I am saying that one of the men is a poet, and incidentally telling you that he is Jim. But if you do know the names, then

3.18)    le nanmu po'u la djim. cu terpemci
    The man who-is Jim is-a-poet.
    The man, the one named Jim, is a poet.

It is worth mentioning that English sometimes over-specifies possession from the Lojban point of view (and the point of view of many other languages, including ones closely related to English). The idiomatic English sentence

3.19)    The man put his hands in his pockets.

3.20)    le nanmu cu punji le xanci le daski
    The man puts the hand at-locus-the pocket.

Finally, the elidable terminator for GOI cmavo is ``ge'u'' of selma'o GEhU; it is almost never required. However, if a logical connective immediately follows a sumti modified by a relative phrase, then an explicit ``ge'u'' is needed to allow the connective to affect the relativized sumti rather than the sumti of the relative phrase. (What about the cmavo after which selma'o GOI is named? It is discussed in Chapter 7, as it is not semantically akin to the other kinds of relative phrases, although the syntax is the same.)