From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 06:47:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 14:47:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 16582 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 14:47:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 14:47:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 14:47:18 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:23:47 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:58:16 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:57:35 +0000 To: 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 >>> Rob Speer 10/29/01 09:42pm >>> #On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 02:34:08PM +0000, And Rosta wrote: #> So anyway, it seems the rule for Lojban is that a zo'e x1 cannot be #> elided. # #I rather hope you mean Loglan! I'm rather certain that Lojban does not #suffer from this flaw. I meant that an ordinary zo'e cannot be elided from x1 of main bridi, because covert zo'e in that position leads to the observative interpretatio= n. #There's lots of usage which shows that a sentence with x1 elided is just #the same as with any other place elided. As Lojbab said, the only #difference is that putting the bridi first draws attention to it. # #If you want to indicate that some sentence besides a bare bridi is an #observative, use {za'a}. I agree. I hope that usage does what you say it does, because it means that= the observative convention is sufficiently feeble for it to be readily ign= orable. --And.