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 m0rjpMv-00007AC; Wed, 1 Mar 95 16:27 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0698; Wed, 01 Mar 95 16:27:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0696; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 16:27:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6127; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:23:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:24:37 MET Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: On {lo} and existence X-To: Lojban Listserv To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1175 Lines: 30 > ({lohi nu broda gihe na broda} would fairly clearly be non-empty, > but lo dahi god knows whether {lohi nu broda kei gihe na nu broda} > is non-empty.) .i gi'e ki'a .i na genxau pe'i > > > Any of these three is okay by me. > > My first choice would be that {nu broda} be a real event of brodaing. > > I can accept it being a potential event of brodaing, but I'd hate to > > let {lo broda} be anything other than a this-world broda. > > ("This world" being the world in which the discourse takes place.) > > I think that of those who've expressed a view, only Lojbab doesn't > go along with your first or second choice, though of the remainder > I don't know whether it is your first or your second choice that > they prefer. John & pc said they agree with you, but the status > of {nu} wasn't mentioned. .i cai lo remoi no'i ru'a .i la'elu mi skicu lonu mi seltu'e li'u ka'e jetnu .i la'elu mi skicu lenu mi selna'i li'u ka'e jetnu .i la'elu mi skicu lonu mi selna'i li'u na li'a jetnu co'o mi'e. goran. -- Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi