From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 29 09:00:01 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 17:00:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 95774 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 17:00:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 17:00:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 17:00:01 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:36:33 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:10:54 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:10:34 +0000 To: bob Cc: 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 Bob: # 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. I've no problem with that. If {mlatu} meant {zo'e1 mlatu (zo'e)}, it would = be obvious that zo'e would refer to the thing being pointed at. What I object = to is that covert but not overt zo'e in x1 of main bridi has a more restricted= range of possible interpretations than overt zo'e and covert zo'e elsewher= e. --And.