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 m0qjX2A-00005IC; Sat, 10 Sep 94 21:20 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5493; Sat, 10 Sep 94 21:18:52 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5490; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 21:18:51 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5358; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 20:17:43 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 14:21:34 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: nuntroci X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 811 Lines: 28 la lojbab di'e mi spusku > mi terbenji ledo mrilu reroi > .iku'i le pamoi spuda nuntroci cu fliba > .isemu'ibo mi remoi fonta'a ledo fonxa vreji minji > .i a'o dei snada se benji i go'i i simlu le ka le mi mrilu minji ba'o se cikre > (I have been debating to myself whether benji implies success, of merely > the attempt to send. It can be read both ways, depending on the english > keyword used - "send" does not imply success, but "transfer" > I think does. Opine.) If {te benji} means "receive", it has to imply success, I think. On the other hand, how would we say: "I already sent it to you, haven't you got it yet?" Perhaps we need: cfabe'i (cfari benji): x1 sends x2 to x3 mulbe'i (mulno benji): x3 receives x2 from x1 Then we would say: {mi ba'o cfabe'i ko'a do i ue xu na ca mulbe'i} Jorge