On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:07 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

I mean, if you can just imagine a pronoun that can act as subject of the second sentence and represent the first sentence, why not just imagine a pronoun acting as object of the second sentence that represents the first sentence? Poof! No need for {‘e’} or {net}. Any sentence can just be invisibly represented by any unstated pronoun acting as subject or object in the following sentence.

You can already do that. For example,

TKD: vIta'pu'be'. I didn't do it.

There's also this dialogue from ST6:
https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2006/May/msg00201.html

Chang:   narghta'? narghta'.
             ([They have] Escaped.)
Grokh:   qay'be'. Daq SovlaHbe'taH qIrq.
             (Kirk cannot know the location of the peace conference.)
             {It does not matter ... Kirk cannot know the location.}
Chang:   DaSovbej'a'? bISuDrup'a'?
             (Are you sure? Will you take that chance?)
             {Are you sure [of that]? ... Are you willing to take that
              chance?}

DaSovbej'a' has an unstated pronoun as object, referring to Grokh's sentence. (Grokh's sentence also uses qay'be', with an unstated subject referring to Chang's earlier statement that Kirk and Spock had escaped.) Leaving out 'e' might cause confusion if there's something else in the context that might also work as a third-person subject, and the two sentences may feel less connected into a single thought, but it's not the end of the world if you leave it out.

So, I repeat, it is not ungrammatical. It is merely hideous. You can’t rely on your reader/listener to consistently realize, “OH, I GET IT. THAT UNSTATED SUBJECT OF THE SECOND VERB REPRESTENTS THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS SENTENCE. WHAT A GREAT IDEA? WHY DIDN’T OKRAND THINK OF THAT?

He did think of that, at least four times. I mentioned them in my earlier posts. I assume the reason he did not spell this out formally is because he didn't think he needed to explain to his audience how to use "it".