From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 30 11:07:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 19:07:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 89516 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 19:07:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 19:07:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 19:07:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.110.7962e43 (4539) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:06:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <110.7962e43.29105450@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:06:56 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_110.7962e43.29105450_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11783 --part1_110.7962e43.29105450_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 8:51:15 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > #If you want to indicate that some sentence besides a bare bridi is an > #observative, use {za'a}. > > I agree. I hope that usage does what you say it does, because it means that > the observative convention is sufficiently feeble for it to be readily > ignorable. > Unfortunately (for you), it does not. {za'a} is an evidential, so does not say that I am observing the situation referred to right now, only that I know of it from observation some time. --part1_110.7962e43.29105450_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 8:51:15 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


#If you want to indicate that some sentence besides a bare bridi is an
#observative, use {za'a}.

I agree. I hope that usage does what you say it does, because it means that the observative convention is sufficiently feeble for it to be readily ignorable.


Unfortunately (for you), it does not.  {za'a} is an evidential, so does not say that I am observing the situation referred to right now, only that I know of it from observation some time. --part1_110.7962e43.29105450_boundary--