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 m0rhkRI-00001pC; Thu, 23 Feb 95 22:47 EET
Message-Id: <m0rhkRI-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0398; Thu, 23 Feb 95 22:47:25 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0396; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 22:47:25 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6269; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 21:43:33 +0100
Date:         Thu, 23 Feb 1995 15:44:47 -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: On {lo} and existence
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199502220224.AA11097@nfs2.digex.net> from
              "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Feb 21, 95 08:58:32 pm
Content-Length: 765
Lines: 20

pc writes, lapsing into bastard TLI Loglan:

> >         we set it up
> >         that way.  The only "All elves" that does not is whatever has
> >         become of _ro_da_kanoi_da_<elf>_ki_ and that is because of
> >         _kanoi_, not _ro_ (and even it implies the rather wimpy _da_
> >         _kanoi_ etc.).

Jorge, understandably bewildered, says:

> I've no idea what _kanoi_ would be, but Lojban's {noi} does precisely
> the opposite, i.e. it does make an incidental claim therefore requiring
> existence, as in {ro da noi broda}.

By "kanoi...ki" pc means "ganai...gi".  And I think he is wrong: "ro broda"
doesn't entail existence.

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