Re: 'Observative' - terminology

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

<lojbab@GREBYN.COM> writes:
> - it is one of a few sentences where I have picked up net.lojban.usage, thoug
> I think it malglico.  The most obvious of these is "cumki fa ..." for
> "it is possible that ...".  I'm not sure why people including myself seem to
> feel comfortable with such reversal, especiallly since we do it only with
> certain words that do so in English...

It's heavy phrase delay.  You want the short material first.
    Ugly:                               Easier to comprehend:
    (long phrase) is possible           It is possible that (long phrase)
    le nu (jufra poi clani) cu cumki    cumki fa le nu (jufra poi clani)

It happens enough that I'm bugged by having to put in the "fa".  On
sumti and subordinate clauses, of course, there is an invisible
occupant of x1 and so any sub-sumti would start with x2.  In "lenu"
clauses I see a similar invisible occupant, though all I hear from
others is stuff about common sense.  But on a main bridi I see no
invisible occupant of x1, and it seems to me to be a very arbitrary and
nitpicky rule -- a holdover from the nasty imperative syntax of Old
Loglan -- to specially omit x1 when there's no sumti before the selbri.

So in a true observative, how do you include x2?  Use "fe".  It's
better for my favorite construction, the more common, to get the short
form, than for your favorite, which is rare even in speech where true
observatives are not that rare.

                -- jimc