Subject: Re: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:13:28 +0000

Rob:
#On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 08:20:43PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
#> <Right. A normal-zo'e x1 in main bridi cannot be elided. Where normal-zo'e
#> = zo'e with its normal meaning.>
#> 
#> Since the normal meaning of {zo'e} (if that locution has any sense at all) is 
#> "the obvious thing," the observative use seem perfectly normal. Context may 
#> force the "currently observed" meaning or some other, just as it always does.
#
#Okay, I finally figured out the sides of the argument here, and am a bit
#surprised to find myself on pycyn's side.
#
#And: your ideas about {zo'e} seem to arise from treating the observative
#as a special case. Why is this necessary?

Treating the observative as a special case is precisely what I object to.
If it is not treated as a special case then there is no observative convention;
there is just the one rule for interpreting zo'e reagrdless of its environment
and of whether it is elided. I don't want there to be an observative
convention; I want there to be just the single general rule. This thread 
began by my asking whether there really was this observative convention,
since I had thought there was just the single general rule.

--And.