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 m0rFgMW-00006wC; Thu, 8 Dec 94 12:46 EET
Message-Id: <m0rFgMW-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9441; Thu, 08 Dec 94 12:46:26 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9438; Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:46:25 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1929; Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:43:09 +0100
Date:         Thu, 8 Dec 1994 05:45:13 -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:      jei
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 567
Lines: 20

Jorge responds to me:
>> which is not far removed from "I know "what" the truth value of [bridi] is"
>
>As long as you use the {tu'a} I have no problem with it. But then {du'u xukau}
>only has one more syllable, and is much more explicit.

I could have put the abstraction in x3 of djuno and omitted the tu'a

The value of jei would come in discussions of logic when you might want
to explicitly say

li pa jei broda

I don't think

li pa du'u xukau broda
has the same meaning, so the two are not synonymous.  (indeed I have no
idea what the latter means %^)

lojbab