RE: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>rob:
><Observatives are best defined by what they do. saying ''karce'' means
>''something is a vehicle'' but the fact that there is an obvious zo'e fills
>in that THERE'S A CAR. ''blanu'' observes that an event of blanuing occurs
>(though if you are advocating the loglan system it is a command to
>''blanu''), but then again saying ''le gerku blanu'' observes that an event
>of a ''gerku'' being ''blanu'' occurs. Observatives seem pretty fuzzily
>defined, because they reallly can't not be. Something is blue is an
>observative because it is useless without refering to something reasonable.
>But in some contexts that zo'e means ''it'' or ''ey'' or even ''you'' or
>'I'', so it could be ''I'm blue''. How is that an observative? Well, it
>observes that I am blue. Observatives are not black and white, if you ask>

That wasn't Rob. That was me.

>Muddled, probably on an ambiguity on "observe" in English. Observatives,
in the present sense, are not even reports of observations going
>on but closer to exclamations. The object (if there is one -- {fagri} is
appropriate long before you have sorted out fuel and oxidizer or
>even identified where the fire is exactly) is direcctly observed with the
utterance (well, is meant to be -- we can fake it and delay it
>somewhat). {le gerku cu blanu} is a report, without any implication of
observation, without any urgency implied; {blanu} or, even better,
>{blanu gerku} has both of these -- and a motivation to react in appropriate
ways as well. Note, relevant to something earlier, that

blanu gerku is not urgent. It is informing us that there is a blue dog.