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 m0qzRQP-00006qC; Mon, 24 Oct 94 17:35 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2703; Mon, 24 Oct 94 17:35:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2701; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 17:35:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2903; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 16:32:11 +0100 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 19:46:13 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: mi na nu'o catra ko'a X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 696 Lines: 17 la kris cusku di'e > It's my understanding that when we say "mi catra ko'a", the tense is left > vague or to context, I always interpret a tensless sentence as "ca'a", and if the time is needed for it to make sense as "ca". I know that the usual claim is that any tense can be meant, but as you point out, allowing it to mean "ka'e" and company doesn't make much sense. 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. Jorge