From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 31 08:02:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 31 Oct 2001 16:02:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 36965 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2001 16:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 31 Oct 2001 16:02:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2001 16:02:42 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:39:13 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:13:44 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:13:28 +0000 To: rob , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11809 Rob: #On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 08:20:43PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: #> #>=20 #> Since the normal meaning of {zo'e} (if that locution has any sense at al= l) is=20 #> "the obvious thing," the observative use seem perfectly normal. Contex= t may=20 #> 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? Treating the observative as a special case is precisely what I object to. If it is not treated as a special case then there is no observative convent= ion; there is just the one rule for interpreting zo'e reagrdless of its environm= ent and of whether it is elided. I don't want there to be an observative convention; I want there to be just the single general rule. This thread=20 began by my asking whether there really was this observative convention, since I had thought there was just the single general rule. --And.