From bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM Mon Oct 29 08:52:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 16:52:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 84925 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 16:52:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 16:52:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (140.186.114.245) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 16:52:56 -0000 Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:51:22 +0000 (UTC) To: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Cc: lojbab@lojban.org, ragnarok@pobox.com, lojban@yahoogroups.com In-reply-to: (message from And Rosta on Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:25:19 +0000) Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives (was RE: a construal of lo'e & le'e Reply-to: bob@rattlesnake.com References: From: "Robert J. Chassell" # Of course the bottom line is that in TLI Loglan there was an # explicit debate between interpreting a bare predicate as a # command or an observative ("Fire!" said to soldiers of an # execution squad, vs. on seeing smoke and flame). JCB chose one # way; we reversed that decision. 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. I don't know the history, but I like the observative. It fits with the way I learn basic vocabulary. Someone points to a creature and observes: {mlatu} I understand and eventually remember the connection between what I saw and the word. All `concrete' notions are items that can be pointed to or mimed (using visual, sound, smell, touch, or taste senses). These are what observatives `observe'. The rest of language is built on metaphors based on these words. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com