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

["Robert J. Chassell" <bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM>]

#I don't know the history, but I like the observative. ...

I've no problem with that. If {mlatu} meant {zo'e1 mlatu (zo'e)},
it would be obvious that zo'e would refer to the thing being
pointed at. What I object to is that covert but not overt zo'e in
x1 of main bridi has a more restricted range of possible
interpretations than overt zo'e and covert zo'e elsewhere.

The restriction comes about because the basic observatives of natural
languages are at the level of genus. So the x2 of {mlatu], `cat',
tends to drop from awareness. 

Maybe it shouldn't.... that is a nice question. After all, we do
argue that all the places of a gismu are equal in some sense. 
However, in the case of `cat' the x2 is implicit in the notion. There
are no cats that that are not of a species.

Similarly, a notion like {jubme}, `table', does require that the
entity we have in mind has an x3 `legs/base/pedestal', else it is not
a table.

* cat, 
x1 is a cat/[puss/pussy/kitten] [feline animal] of species/breed x2;
(adjective:) x1 is feline 
/:/
/=/ mlatu (lat)


* table, 
x1 is a table/flat solid upper surface of material x2, supported by
legs/base/pedestal x3 
/:/
/=/ jubme (jub jbu)

It is interesting that {nilce} is always for a location; not like
English `furniture', which may exist without our thinking of where it
goes. 

* furniture, 
x1 [furniture items] furnishes x2 [location] serving purpose/function x3 
/:/
/=/ nilce (ni'e)

-- 
Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com