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 m0q4cj3-00006YC; Sat, 21 May 94 01:07 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8563; Sat, 21 May 94 01:07:38 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8557; Sat, 21 May 1994 01:07:36 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0031; Sat, 21 May 1994 00:05:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 01:16:53 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ta'e/na'o X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 18 I will go out on a limb, without checking notes and hence relying on memory. A check with pc may be ultimately required, though I am fairly sure my notes will resolve it if the following seems unacceptable. na'o is intended to be objective, covering most of the interval, but as John said, "most" being determined by context. ta'e is intended to be a subjective evaluation, as John said, selected with reference to the observed behavior (I am not sure this would necessarily be an agent's behavior - a patient could also typically experience something 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. If these seem contradictory or incompatible, we need to find the notes (not easy these days) or check with pc. There may be some clarification in the discussion of TAhE in very old cmavo lists, but I may be being optimistic. lojbab