From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 29 06:23:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 14:23:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 21435 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 14:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 14:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 14:23:29 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:00:06 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:34:33 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:34:08 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #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=20 #interpretation that, ceteris paribus, sentences without explicit x1 are=20 #observatives, the implicit x1 being something now observed. I take it you= =20 #are talking about some current Loglan system; the old one had a lot of=20 #trouble with x1-less sentences (and what has observatives to do with {le l= o},=20 #either Lojbanic or Loglandic?) I'm talking about current Loglan, or at least my desultory reading of it. Yes, an observative is a type of sentence, but in Lojban a sequence of one or more sumti can count as a sentence. So anyway, it seems the rule for Lojban is that a zo'e x1 cannot be elided. What le/lo have to do with observatives is that the sentence {lo gerku} could mean "Lo! A dog", while {le gerku} could mean "Lo! The dog". --And.