Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:39:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710031739.MAA19915@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: LE and VOI X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1252 Lines: 42 Xorxes: > All right, yes, I think I understand it now. As you said a couple > of posts ago, it's the difference between: > > (a) There's a brilliant film such that I assert it is going to be > on the telly tomorrow. > > and > > (b) I assert that there's going to be a brilliant film on the > telly tomorrow. > > We can easily say (b) using {lo}: > > lo xautce skina ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei Agreed. > but we don't have a direct way of saying (a) unless we go for > something like: > > lo xautce skina zo'u mi xusra le du'u sy ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei Doesn't really mean quite the same thing. (Try doing imperatives or questions.) > I'd say that even this should work: > > lo xautce skina zo'u ju'a sy ba se tivni ca le bavlamdei Hmmm. I don't really trust interactions of logical element and UI. But even so, it's a mighty hassle to have to stick everything in the prenex. To this, I prefer the {ba`e ko`a} method, but still would like to find a method that uses a gadri and avoids prenexes. > Very interesting. Yes, though I'm surprised we have had this exchange. I thought we (you & me) had already established its upshot in years gone by. --And