From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Nov 02 01:55:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 09:55:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 4234 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 09:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 09:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 09:55:00 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.15]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011102035419.IUOT5450.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 03:54:19 +0000 Reply-To: To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] observatives & a construal of lo'e & le'e Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 03:53:36 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011031193505.00d64d90@pop.cais.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lojbab: > At 04:13 PM 10/31/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >#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. > > Do you also object to the "story time" convention as a special case? Yes, I do. It falls out automatically from the process of glorking tense from context. No convention is needed. > Do you object to the various special cases that Nick identified as part of > the lujvo-place structures paper? You'll have to indicate to me the specifics you're asking about. I never cared much one way or the other about jvajvo, so I haven't read that paper in several years. However, if you are just talking about jvajvo conventions, then I don't object to these. Every lujvo has a definite placestructure that is invariant across different utterance contexts, so the conventions are not pernicious. --And.