From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 29 08:15:00 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 16:15:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 40010 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 16:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 16:14:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 16:14:56 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:51:31 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:25:56 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:25:19 +0000 To: lojbab , ragnarok , 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 Lojbab: #Of course the bottom line is that in TLI Loglan there was an explicit=20 #debate between interpreting a bare predicate as a command or an observativ= e=20 #("Fire!" said to soldiers of an execution squad, vs. on seeing smoke and=20 #flame). JCB chose one way; we reversed that decision.=20=20 I don't see why you didn't go for a third option, that of having no special rules(or "conventions") for bare predicates in main bridi. #Other ways of showing the observative were not considered, except to=20 #reject the lone sumti version, which seemed horribly flawed. What are the horrible flaws? --And.