Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 8 Sep 1993 10:50:11 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 8 Sep 1993 10:50:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199309081450.AA05638@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 7022; Wed, 08 Sep 93 10:48:12 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 1447; Wed, 08 Sep 93 10:48:09 EDT
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1993 15:44:18 +0100
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: LE & LO
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep  8 16:44:18 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

And asks:

> And if you were right, wouldn't "lo" always be replaceable by
>"suho (or whatever) le [ro] broda"?

No, because specificity is the secondary meaning of 'le'. The
primary meaning is non-veridicality.

        Colin