From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 16:56:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 23:56:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 8567 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.181) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:55:50 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.61 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.61] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2001 23:55:50.0356 (UTC) FILETIME=[22E45940:01C12C2F] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >I must say though, that given the actual usage of nu, which so >often seems to me to be wrong, your story reflects actual usage. >I just think that neither your story nor much usage makes much >sense. I think you are right that nu is used wrong, but I don't think the alternative is du'u in those cases. The problem, I think, is as usual the quantifiers. {le nu broda} should refer to an event in real space-time to the same extent that {le gerku} does. {lo'e nu broda} is what we should use when referring to events that don't ca'a fasnu. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp