From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Oct 29 10:45:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 18:45:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 63526 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 18:45:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 18:45:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 18:45:19 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic77.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.77]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9TIjIC52348 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011029133332.00d3d1f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:46:04 -0500 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11747 At 04:25 PM 10/29/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >Lojbab: >#Of course the bottom line is that in TLI Loglan there was an explicit >#debate between interpreting a bare predicate as a command or an observative >#("Fire!" said to soldiers of an execution squad, vs. on seeing smoke and >#flame). JCB chose one way; we reversed that decision. > >I don't see why you didn't go for a third option, that of having no special >rules(or "conventions") for bare predicates in main bridi. Anything JCB had made a ruling on, we felt compelled to either replicate his ruling or specify an alternative. In the case of bare predicates, these were the two alternatives that had been argued for years. >#Other ways of showing the observative were not considered, except to >#reject the lone sumti version, which seemed horribly flawed. > >What are the horrible flaws? Basically, I think it comes down to the same thing that caused by strong opinion on ka and ce'u. Predicates are relations between multiple sumti, and when we observe a predicate, we are observing the relationship and not the x1 of the relationship. There is also much more manipulation needed to turn some predicates in sumti that make clear what is being observed. For example, using the "fire" case, it is not clear whether we observe lo jelca (a fire), or lo se jelca (something burning). If we say simply jelca we convey with immediacy that the relationship is being observed. By contrast, with an imperative, we always have in mind someone (and usually someone in particular) being commanded to make the predicate true, so commands seem natural to invoke a sumti indicating what role the commandee is supposed to play in making the relationship true. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org