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 m0rj8ku-000078C; Mon, 27 Feb 95 18:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2402; Mon, 27 Feb 95 17:53:16 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2398; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 17:53:15 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9726; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 16:49:16 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:45:32 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: events - repsonse to And X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: from "lojbab" at Feb 23, 95 01:48:40 pm Content-Length: 576 Lines: 13 I have gotten a few requests asking me just what message of Jorge's I aligned myself with. Apparently not all of you use mailreaders that understand the "In-Reply-To:" header. The message in question begins with a quote from lojbab and continues: > But that is also the bottom line for {da}. The "existence" of the > existence quantifier only says that there is a referent. The referent > of {lo pavyseljirna} is the same one of {da poi pavyseljirna}. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.