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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:00:18 EST

In a message dated 10/28/2001 1:12:06 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.
> 

Observative is a type of sentence, not of sumti. It is a rule of 
interpretation that, ceteris paribus, sentences without explicit x1 are 
observatives, the implicit x1 being something now observed. I take it you 
are talking about some current Loglan system; the old one had a lot of 
trouble with x1-less sentences (and what has observatives to do with {le lo}, 
either Lojbanic or Loglandic?)

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>

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 
< {stedu ro
remna} has the x2 filled. It's the same as {ro remna se stedu}.>

is wrong: the first is an observative on spotting the universal head 
(presumably not done by a human), the second just says that every person has 
a head (or heads) (we can't, alas, say "is beheaded" as is often so useful 
with other body parts).