Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:37:04 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:36:58 -0400
Message-Id: <199309290636.AA11713@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 3610; Wed, 29 Sep 93 02:35:18 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 5346; Wed, 29 Sep 93 02:37:56 EDT
Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:35:58 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: a very few lujvo
X-To:         nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 28 22:35:58 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

NN> #zgama'o - What is an observational? I thought you meant
NN> #                evidential, but you gloss that separately.
NN>
NN> I just meant that subclass of evidentials to do with observation, but
NN> they don't really merit a lujvo.

I don't understand this!!!  If you can talk about it, and there is reason to
think it is a single concept, why SHOULDN'T it be a lujvo?  lujvo are about
making fine distinctions when appropriate.  We DO make those distinctions,
and they sometimes are appropriate.  Since much talk in Lojban is ABOUT Lojban
I suspect that there is need for more degrees of refinement in that subject
area than in others.

I see the value in a general term when it doesn't matter whether it is
an evidential of a general sort, or whether it is a subcategory.  But since
you thought of the category, ti must mean something to you, or you would
never have propsoed it.

Or am I missing something?

lojbab