From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Thu Mar 18 09:00:26 1993
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:00:25 -0500
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 2468; Thu, 18 Mar 93 03:59:15 EST
Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP  id 6170; Thu, 18 Mar 93 04:00:32 EST
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1993 09:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      RE: Comments from pc on various issues
X-To:         cowan@snark.thyrsus.com
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: O
Message-ID: <DzPNUZPIgVC.A.e1.120kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> le ka da broda

I've changed my mind about this.

At first, I shared Mark's dislike of usurping
{da} like this.  I don't much like using {ke'a} either
(we might need it for a genuine relativization),
but I thought we might use an unbound {ko'a}.
And of course you can usually use {ri} or {ra}.
(Can we have {ri xi re}?  Yes, apparently we can.)

But I'm now coming round to liking {da}.
If you have

        le ka da zo'u da broda

that's not so different in superficial appearance from

        <lambda> x: broda(x, ...)

and possibly not too distant in intention from
a more conventional prenex either.
And if I'm right in my assumption that the scope
of an implicit quantification is unspecified and
to-be-glorked, then this naturally abbreviates to

        le ka da broda

after all.

co'omi'e .i,n.