From biomass@hobbiton.org Wed Apr 25 18:59:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: biomass@hobbiton.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 01:59:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2080 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 01:59:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 01:59:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.hobbiton.org) (216.161.236.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 01:59:50 -0000 Received: from hobbiton.org (biomass@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by legolas.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3MEh0311049 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:43:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (biomass@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3MEiG210367 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:44:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:44:16 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: biomass@thorin To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] conditionals in Lojban In-Reply-To: <9buihr+g49c@eGroups.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Avital Oliver > 1) "I was (or had been etc.) obliged/forced etc. to do something" (and hence did it) > 2) "I should/ought have done something (in the past)" (which I actually didn't do and now am regretting missing it). I think using attitudunals in this case is both over-ambiguous and not pointing to the fact. What's wrong with for (1)? As for (2), I'm not sure, but I think there should be a brivla parallel to for 'should' - something like bilga ru'e?