From <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Mon Mar 8 17:17:12 2010 Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0owyVd-0000PYC; Tue, 9 Nov 93 21:13 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6355; Tue, 09 Nov 93 21:13:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6354; Tue, 9 Nov 1993 21:13:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7932; Tue, 9 Nov 1993 20:12:55 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 14:11:00 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: more Eaton, anyone? To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 904 Lines: 16 I'm sure that I did respond re the probability in pacnabut maybe only to clarify the gismu list. The intent is that one field allows the distinction between hope (which has some expectation of success ranging up to certainty) from wish (which has a very low to nil expectation of success. In other words it was a way yot avoid adding a word for "expect" in one instance, at a time when we were facing the rabid gismu minimalists. re platu. I t didn't have an agent for the longest time, but then people convinced me that an agent was useful, and more or less always implied by a plan (how can you have a plan without a planner?) It would be hard to reverse myself on this now, but if there is a good argument I missed, lets hear it (assuming it didn't come up in the last deagentification discussion, which I have yet to get to in my mail processing, much less the gismu list finalization. lojbab