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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Lojbab:
> At 04:13 PM 10/31/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >#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.
> 
> Do you also object to the "story time" convention as a special case?  

Yes, I do. It falls out automatically from the process of glorking tense
from context. No convention is needed.

> Do you object to the various special cases that Nick identified as part of 
> the lujvo-place structures paper?

You'll have to indicate to me the specifics you're asking about. I never
cared much one way or the other about jvajvo, so I haven't read that
paper in several years. However, if you are just talking about jvajvo
conventions, then I don't object to these. Every lujvo has a definite
placestructure that is invariant across different utterance contexts,
so the conventions are not pernicious.

--And.