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 m0rEk6M-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 22:33 EET
Message-Id: <m0rEk6M-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8714; Mon, 05 Dec 94 22:33:51 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8708; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 22:33:50 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8527; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:30:19 +0100
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:20:36 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH:  existential quantification
To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To:  <199411260050.AA18996@nfs2.digex.net> from "Iain Alexander" at
              Nov 25, 94 11:40:28 pm
Content-Length: 803
Lines: 19

la .i,n. cusku di'e

> I pretty much agree with Jorge on this, but I'd like to repeat a
> suggestion I've made in the past.  I like {za'i} in this situation.
>
>         mi troci lo za'i mi viska do
>
> This assumes that {za'i <broda>} (the state <broda>) is some
> sort of abstraction from all the events {nu <broda>}.

I think this statement evinces a confusion between "nu" and "mu'e", between
events and point-events.  In Lojban, a state is a kind of event.  You may
say that a state is made up of a welding-together of many point-events,
provided you quantize time (and we don't have to), but nothing can be done
with states that can't be done with (generalized, {nu}) events.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.