Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rtEAF-0009acC; Mon, 27 Mar 95 15:44 EET DST
Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.11p1+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA19768 for <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 15:44:58 +0300
Received: from LISTSERV.FUNET.FI (LISTSERV@FIPORT)
 by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494)
 id <01HOMQ3V7HC0002YBE@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 12:41:45 +0200 (EET)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:42:57 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: selbri as sumti
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HOMQ56N7TE002YBE@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 707
Lines: 17

And:
>  The x1 is an individual event, with, as you
> say, determinate sumti, but also with determinate time. The x2
> obviously is not the same event, & I don't see why (especially if
> we reason from a glico notion of recurrence) it has to be an event
> identical to the x1 in all respects other than tense.

Maybe because the time in which it happens is one of the least important
identifying characteristics of an event, so that two that only differ
in that are almost perceived as the same, just like today's John is
almost perceived as the same as yesterday's John.

Also, the x3 of krefu suggests that what differs is precisely the time
of occurence. How else would they be naturally ordered?

Jorge