[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
response to Jim Carterjimc writes:
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>, List Reader <ghsvax!hal>
- Subject: response to Jim Carterjimc writes:
- From: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!lojbab>
- Reply-To: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!lojbab>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
>So in the observative arena the burden is shifted from one not-so-common
>usage pattern to another similarly rare, while the burden is taken off
>of a pattern I use a lot in non-observative situations.
But as you've just agreed, a trailing argument observative form is quite
common within abstracts. So you would thus have one counting scheme
within abstractions and a different one outside abstractions.
Since no one has ever given a reason for using VSO in Lojban other than
aesthetics, the only other justification is emphasis on the predicate
(i.e. the generic observative justification) wherein the sumti immediately
after the predicate is relatively deemphasized. Hence why the big deal over
the minimal marker syllable 'fa'. It will take a lot of Zipfean usage to
make that syllable too much, and the omission of x1 in many abstractions
is a strong counterweight to personal preference.
lojbab@grebyn.com