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 m0ri4xG-00001pC; Fri, 24 Feb 95 20:41 EET
Message-Id: <m0ri4xG-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8551; Fri, 24 Feb 95 20:41:44 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8549; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:41:44 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9951; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 19:37:49 +0100
Date:         Fri, 24 Feb 1995 13:42:14 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 740
Lines: 20

And:
> I see what you're saying. Whether or not you're right simply depends
> on the definition of {troci}, or of the "succeeding" which trying
> implies. Has one succeeded simply if the event one tried to bring
> about comes about, or has one succeeded only if one is the cause
> of the event coming about. You appear to assume the former,
> whereas Lojbab & pc appear to assume the latter.

That's why I asked whether {troci} has an implied {gasnu} in it.
If it does, then what is the difference between:

        mi troci le nu le rokci cu muvdu

and:
        mi troci le nu mi gasnu le nu le rokci cu muvdu

If I have to be the cause in order to succeed anyway, then the
first one would simply be a short form of the second one.

Jorge