From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fri Jul 15 13:48:57 1994
Message-Id: <199407151748.AB28874@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Fri Jul 15 13:48:57 1994
Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject:      Re: cukta
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

la nitcion cusku di'e

> [Thanks to Lojbab for expanding on this. I would argue that le is much closer
> to lo than to jei --- and of course, there is no easy way to convert {li
> piso'e cu jei ti cukta} can be converted into a descriptor for {ti}
> (corrections welcome!)]

The only thing I can think of which might dig out a description from
this is {jai}.  It would need {jei} to have a terbri which referred
to the encapsulated bridi, something like

    x1 is truth value of [bridi] (x3) under epistemology x2

and we could then say

    le jai te jei cukta kei be fi li piso'e

I'm not quite sure if this works.

If it does, then we might want to do the same for {su'u} (any others?).

mu'o mi'e .i,n.