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 #1) id m0q4dGH-00006YC; Sat, 21 May 94 01:41 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8971; Sat, 21 May 94 01:41:59 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8967; Sat, 21 May 1994 01:41:58 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1018; Sat, 21 May 1994 00:40:18 +0200 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 18:43:15 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: ta'e/na'o X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 683 Lines: 18 Lojbab, and then John, say: > > under some conditions). ta'e might also be seen as correlating to the > > high probability that the event would occur during the interval, whereas na'o > > is talking more about how much of the interval is associated with the event. > > I don't think so: we have no tense for "probably". Things asserted to > {ta'e} occur, occur just as much as anything else; we simply add the side > comment that the occurrence reflects the habitual behavior of some person > or animal. Aha! It reflects their habitual behaviour outside of the interval in question? Because na'o would be enough to reflect their habitual behaviour within the interval. Jorge