From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Oct 30 20:33:02 2001
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 31 Oct 2001 04:33:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 65209 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2001 04:33:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 31 Oct 2001 04:33:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2001 04:33:01 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139])
	by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9V4X1F09677
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:33:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:32:59 -0500
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
	id 15yn2x-0000Pl-00
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:32:11 -0500
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:32:11 -0500
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e
Message-ID: <20011030233211.A1582@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
References: <15d.345830a.2910abeb@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15d.345830a.2910abeb@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11803

On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 08:20:43PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> <Right. A normal-zo'e x1 in main bridi cannot be elided. Where normal-zo'e
> = zo'e with its normal meaning.>
> 
> Since the normal meaning of {zo'e} (if that locution has any sense at all) is 
> "the obvious thing,"  the observative use seem perfectly normal.  Context may 
> force the "currently observed" meaning or some other, just as it always does.

Okay, I finally figured out the sides of the argument here, and am a bit
surprised to find myself on pycyn's side.

And: your ideas about {zo'e} seem to arise from treating the observative
as a special case. Why is this necessary?

-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri