Message-Id: <199311091913.AA02367@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Tue, 9 Nov 1993 14:11:00 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: more Eaton, anyone?
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

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