From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Oct 28 11:10:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 28 Oct 2001 19:10:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 27144 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 19:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 28 Oct 2001 19:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 19:10:58 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.139]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011028191056.XOLV490.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:10:56 +0000 Reply-To: To: Subject: observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:10:09 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11706 john: > Rob Speer scripsit: > > Of course, {stedu ro remna} would work, > > I don't think this works either: "Look! A head of every man!" Is it a rule of interpretation that a zo'e x1 in the main bridi is interpreted as an observative? I'd prefer the Loglan system where a bare sumti is an observative (which allows the le/lo contrast to be exploited), and for zo'e x1 in main bridi to be no different in its effects than zo'e elsewhere. --And.