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 m0qSdq9-000023C; Tue, 26 Jul 94 07:10 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5989; Tue, 26 Jul 94 07:08:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5985; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 07:08:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7576; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 06:07:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:08:34 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea? X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 452 Lines: 10 I vaguely suspect that this argument is along the lines of the old "John seeks a bicycle or a fish", where the question of intensionality comes into play. Cowan wrote at length on that issue a long time ago and I think we have it covered. Pragmatically, though, to answer a "ji" with ".a" you had better then prepared to accept either. If you want tea, you need to say "na'e", or perhaps se.u (that shoudl have been na.e on the last line). lojbab