Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110051700.AA18449@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Sat Oct 5 16:20:15 1991 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: response to Jim Carterjimc writes: X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor , List Reader Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Oct 5 16:20:15 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN >So in the observative arena the burden is shifted from one not-so-common >usage pattern to another similarly rare, while the burden is taken off >of a pattern I use a lot in non-observative situations. But as you've just agreed, a trailing argument observative form is quite common within abstracts. So you would thus have one counting scheme within abstractions and a different one outside abstractions. Since no one has ever given a reason for using VSO in Lojban other than aesthetics, the only other justification is emphasis on the predicate (i.e. the generic observative justification) wherein the sumti immediately after the predicate is relatively deemphasized. Hence why the big deal over the minimal marker syllable 'fa'. It will take a lot of Zipfean usage to make that syllable too much, and the omission of x1 in many abstractions is a strong counterweight to personal preference. lojbab@grebyn.com