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

From: "Craig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:04:16 -0500

>Is it a rule of interpretation that a zo'e x1 in the main bridi
>is interpreted as an observative? I'd prefer the Loglan system
>where a bare sumti is an observative (which allows the le/lo
>contrast to be exploited), and for zo'e x1 in main bridi to be
>no different in its effects than zo'e elsewhere.

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
me.
They can be any color they want zo'o...

--la kreig.daniyl.

'lonu zasti ce lonu na zasti cu finsi'u
.i loka nandu ce loka frili cu riksi'u
.i loka clani ce loka tordu cu mresi'u
.i loka galtu ce loka dizlu cu bapsi'u
.i lo voksa joi lo sance cu saxsi'u
.i caku lo purci lo bavli cu katyje'i'
-la lautsyl.

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74