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 m0qzc1G-00006qC; Tue, 25 Oct 94 04:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3941; Tue, 25 Oct 94 04:54:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3937; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 04:54:01 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2016; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 03:50:59 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 20:32:37 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: mi na nu'o catra ko'a X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 770 Lines: 15 la xorxes. cusku di'e: >It's funny what {na nu'o} ends up meaning. I agree that {nu'o} is equivalent >to {ka'e jenai puca'a} and similarly, {pu'i} is {ka'e je puca'a}. I don't >really understand why they are part of the language. They seem to be possible >translations of "could", but they don't seem that useful to me to have a >special word. For that matter, what's the pragmatic difference between "ca'a" and "pu'i"? Both mean the thing happened, but only one states that the thing was possible. But the reality of an action logically entails the possibility of the action, doesn't it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~