From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 15 07:19:10 1996
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id HAA25771 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 07:19:05 -0500
Message-Id: <199601151219.HAA25771@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6FB24D0E ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 6:52:01 -0500
Date:         Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:53:28 GMT
Reply-To: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI zoigy. would gy. se fanva fu ma
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length:  767


cu'u la kl,n. zoigy.
> A way round is to use 'lakne':
>       .i na'e lakne pe'i fa le nu ra ba facki lemi'a pajygunta
gy.

.i mi na tugni

It's not just that they were other-than-probably going to discover the
ambuscade, but as it turned out they did >actually< discover it due to some
unspecified event.

cu'u la .eduard. zoigy.
> I believe that the implication is that
> 1) In the normal course of events, the ambuscade _would not_ be discovered
> before the attack, and _would_ attack as planned (all hypothetical).
> 2) Something else happened. The ambuscade was not discovered, but did not
> attack (actual).
gy.

.i mi na tugni do lesedu'u go'i .i le nunpajgunta pu ca'a te facki .i e'o do
cusku ra bau la lojban.

ni'o co'omi'e dn.