From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:59:33 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3147 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:59:31 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 27 May 95 21:52:23 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa00121; 27 May 95 22:51 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9943; Sat, 27 May 95 17:49:22 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4710; Sat, 27 May 1995 17:26:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:26:37 -0400 Reply-To: "Dylan P. Thurston" Sender: Lojban list From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: <01HQZZ4JG91UBIJX2D@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU> Message-ID: <9505272251.aa00121@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R mi cusku di'e > > It can't, as far as I know. (Well, maybe you could say > > > > le du'u le cukta cu ka'e cpana le jubme cu fatci > > > > and then just elide the {ka'e}...) .i la xorxes. cusku di'e > Why is the fact that the book can be there a fact, but the fact > that it actually is there is not a fact? Suppose it's in the nature of this particular book to be capable of lying on the table. This nature is an unchanging thing and doesn't depend on particular circumstances. (I'm not sure if the book can be innately capable of doing something like lying on the table. But I'd argue that {le du'u lo'e cukta cu ka'e te tcidu cu fatci}.) > co'o mi'e xorxes mu'o mi'e. dilyn.