Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9111020341.AA05820@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Sun Nov  3 06:56:15 1991
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!91909372>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!91909372>
Subject:      'Essential' - reply to jimc
X-To:         Lojban list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov  3 06:56:15 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

I don't tink there is such a thing as an essential place - or if there
is, it only makes sense in a very narrow interpretation (cf 'Core
Grammatical Relations' as in Relational Grammar).  As you say lojbab
argues, the places are a matter of negotiation between speakers. You can
argue 'it would be more (often) useful to have this positional argument
than that one', but I don't believe that a simple binary
'essential/non-essential' is the slightest bit useful.

                                Kolen Fain
c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk