>>41

You might have been tricked by phrases like "lo birka be mi", my arm. In that case, the place structure of "birka" is "x1 is the arm of x2", so using "be" to put something in the second place does what's done with the possessive in English.

You might also be interested in "po" and "po'e", which are stronger words than "pe". With "pe" you are just saying that there is some sort of relationship-- "lo stizu pe la .djan." (the chair somehow-related-to john) might just be a chair that you're pointing out which one you mean using John because he's standing next to it. There's a stronger and more specific relationship with "po", which is what is best to use for something which you own. Something associated with "po" is specifically strongly related to the thing marked, not just right this second but in general. Stronger yet is "po'e", which marks an inalienable connection-- something which can't be sold or given away or separated.

>>54
Very interesting indeed! "po" certainly sounds accurate for my usage? Is there a way to describe a relationship like one's existence caused another's? Might be taking it a little too far there, but it is interesting to consider all the different ways in which relationships can be expressed between two objects.

be - related?
pe - related
po - stronger relation -- is there a better word for this?
po'e - connected?

Are there any more?

>>56

I think I've heard "po" described as "specifically" related, and "po'e" described as "intrinsically" related.

"be" is more magical than you think it is, which is part of my response to "taking it a little too far there"-- we always take things a little too far in Lojban. We always take things just a little bit farther; we take things all the way.

It seems like you're probably at the point where you're starting to understand that the "noun"ish uses of gismu (and other brivla) are actually exactly parallel to their "verb"ish use in the center of a bridi. "lo mlatu ku" is an argument which is derived from a bridi that goes "mlatu"; its referent is the first place of that bridi, the x1.

"be" allows us, during the process of saying a sentence, to reach into that bridi about which we are refering to the x1, and fill its other places as well! For instance "mlatu" is a two-place relation; the second place is the breed of cat. To refer to a Siamese cat, we can say "lo mlatu be la'o gy Siamese gy be'o ku"

Or for instance take "klama". "mi klama la .boston." means that I travel to Boston. "lo klama ku" is someone who travels. Since "mi" is in the first place of "klama", that makes me "lo klama", a traveller. With "be" we can insert the destination as well: "lo klama be la .boston.", a goer to boston.

One more trick: Numbered places like x1 (fa) x2 (fe) etc are just one kind of place that you can fill in a bridi. If you don't specify with "be", the place after the "be" will be the x2 place of the bridi. You can specify a different numbered place by saying for instance "lo klama be fi la .boston." (a traveller from boston, fi for the x3 place, the origin).

You can also add any other place, such as a time place: "lo tricu be ca lo vensa" (a tree during a spring), or a BAI place (BAI is a family of cmavo that let you add extra places with various purposes): "lo klama be bai tu'a lo jatna" (a traveller compelled by (some action of) a captain).

Which brings me to how to say what you requested, "a relationship like one's existence caused another's": I suggest "be ri'a tu'a". "lo mlatu be ri'a tu'a mi", the cat which is caused by (some event involving) me. If you wanted to say more specifically that something is related to you by you having agentively caused it, you can say "be gau mi", meaning with "gasnu", doer, me. "lo klama be gau mi", someone who I cause to travel.

These are great powers! Use them wisely! :)

I've always shied away from using pe/po/po'e. Sticking the possessor between le and the brivla seems more concise and less topsy-turvy. It may be my English perspective doing that though, although there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that.

I suppose the best approach is to vary the usage depending on which is the important part of the statement. But then again, normally you don't need to specify possession unless it's important, in which case sticking the possessor between le and the brivla is the best option in most cases.

>>120

Hardly anyone says "lo zdani pe mi" instead of "lo mi zdani" (the two are equivalent), but there are many cases where it makes more sense to put the "pe" phrase afterward, for instance if the description of the associated sumti is long. You might want to say "give me that book over there that's next to the big red book", for instance. You could say "ko dunda le le barda je xunre cukta ku cukta mi", but it would be much more ordinary to say "ko dunda le cukta pe le barda je xunre cukta mi" or perhaps even "ko dunda fi mi fe le cukta pe le barda je xunre cukta". Complicated phrases are often most sensibly put at the end of a bridi.