Message-Id: <9108131758.AA12671@relay2.UU.NET>
From: cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson
Date: Tue Aug 13 16:16:36 1991
To: jimc@math.ucla.edu
Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
In-Reply-To: jimc@math.ucla.edu's message of Tue, 13 Aug 91 08:35:38 -0700 <9108131535.AA10554@luna.math.ucla.edu>
Subject: "Could you please..." "Yes" 
Status: RO

Jimc writes:
>By the way, I think both of us are abusing "lo" in that the currently
>official default quantification is "ro - all", so

Um, no.  {lo} is defined (draft lesson, p. 5-26): "a referent which is a
*subset* of the set ... [whose members] accurately [meet] the x1 sumti of
the bridi relationship ..." (emphasis mine, and I replaced the set with its
members, since that what was meant).  So (unless something's changed), I
can use {lo} to mean a (possibly empty) subset, not the whole.

Otherwise, thanks for your correction of veridicality.

~mark