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 m0rjtCy-00007AC; Wed, 1 Mar 95 20:33 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5557; Wed, 01 Mar 95 20:33:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5555; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:33:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3945; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 19:29:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:30:50 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: On {lo} and existence X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 896 Lines: 23 > > > 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 i la'e di'u stidi le du'u do zmanei le pamoi enai le remoi > co'o mi'e. goran. co'o mi'e xorxes