Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pNQXU-0000Q8C; Fri, 21 Jan 94 20:25 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0426; Fri, 21 Jan 94 20:24:47 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0423; Fri, 21 Jan 1994 20:24:47 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1459; Fri, 21 Jan 1994 19:24:04 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 18:10:58 GMT Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: pinka lo vi tcima To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 468 Lines: 11 Nick: > It struck me as a surpise too, but this seems to be how pacna's place >structure has been redefined. The new gloss refers explicitly to "expecting" >for {pacna be fi li piso'a} Indeed, but there are two different 'expect's in English. As I interpret the gi'uste, 'pacna' has an element of desire, and so pacna be fi li piso'a means 'I think it likely and approve of that '. I believe that the expect you intended did not have that connotation. Colin