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 m0qOr7E-000022C; Fri, 15 Jul 94 20:32 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9644; Fri, 15 Jul 94 20:30:37 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9640; Fri, 15 Jul 1994 20:30:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7024; Fri, 15 Jul 1994 19:29:41 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 18:18:00 BST Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: cukta X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 708 Lines: 22 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.