From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Oct 07 16:12:03 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 55710 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 23:12:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2003 23:12:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 23:12:02 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22)
	id 1A70zq-0005jH-0m
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:12:02 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22)
	id 1A70zK-0005ih-2z; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:11:30 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22)
	id 1A70z0-0005iJ-1j
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:11:10 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-150.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.150])
	by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707C91E7C9
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed,  8 Oct 2003 01:10:33 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <000901c38d28$3590dbc0$02e1fea9@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
References: <20031007193634.27576.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: consolation
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:09:55 +0100
Organization: Livagian Consulate
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 6377
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20859

xorxes:
> --- Martin Bays <mbays@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > So what brivla unambiguously corresponds to mo'u, in the way sisti does
to
> > co'u?
>
> Let's see.
>
> {mulno} is not problematic when the x1 involves a change of state.
> {le nu klama cu mulno} says that the going is complete, i.e. that
> the goer has reached the destination. Similarly {le nu binxo
> cu mulno} and {le nu zbasu cu mulno} are clear.
>
> The problem appears when x1 is a state. Does {le nu mi gleki
> cu mulno} mean that my happiness is complete, or that I'm no
> longer happy? States don't have a temporal completion point,
> so a state is complete when it is in some sense saturated,
> if I could not be happier then my happiness is complete.
> That is what I take {mulno} to mean when x1 is a state.

I would take mulno to mean "finished" & hence no state can be
a mulno. IOW either {le nu mi gleki cu mulno} is false, or
le nu mi gleki is not a state but a finishable event.

--And.