From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 28 18:00:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 02:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 59382 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 02:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 02:00:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 02:00:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.10.149e7267 (3981) for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:00:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10.149e7267.290e1232@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:00:18 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10.149e7267.290e1232_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_10.149e7267.290e1232_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/28/2001 1:12:06 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com 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: 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). --part1_10.149e7267.290e1232_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/28/2001 1:12:06 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com 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).

--part1_10.149e7267.290e1232_boundary--