From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Aug 17 09:34:31 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:37:11 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:37:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199308171737.AA11171@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4819; Tue, 17 Aug 93 13:35:49 EDT Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8999; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:35:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:34:31 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Still a few thoughts about ZAhOs X-To: snark!cowan@gvls1.vfl.paramax.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: ca'o spuda la djan > > > Presumably, Paul's coming to damascus has long ago _left_ its ba'o stage too, > > or is all this "immediate relevance to the present" that we've been assuming > > unwarranted? > > I don't know whether it's warranted or not (Bob Chassell would argue not). I guess this means that it's left to individual taste? > But in any event, that particular {nunklama} is certainly relevant to the > present: the current war in Bosnia would hardly exist without it! > I'm still not convinced: {la paul ba'o klama la damaskus ca le nu cabna jamna} I don't like this use of ba'o, but maybe it's correct. I prefer to use it when the fact that the going is over is relevant, not simply when it is true. Jorge