Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA05662 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 13:51:59 +0200 Message-Id: <199601151151.NAA05662@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id B85C57C1 ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:51:58 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:53:28 GMT Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI zoigy. would gy. se fanva fu ma To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 740 Lines: 23 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.