From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Tue Feb 15 09:20:08 1994
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:26:25 -0500
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:26:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199402151926.AA02968@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 1654; Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:24:27 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 7538; Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:18:46 EDT
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:20:08 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: 

> > I suspect that my reasoning is wrong, why?

la i,n mi di'e spuda

> I don't understand your problem - your reasoning looks fine to me.
> Just because it's veridical, doesn't mean it has to be precise. %~>

By "it", you mean my reasoning? :)

My doubts come from having read so many times that {ro lo broda} is
often a much more absolute claim than one intends to make.

If {ro lo broda} is the same as {ro lo broda be zo'e}, is it also
the same as {ro lo broda be BAI zo'e}? This keeps the veridicality
of {lo}, while permiting a context sensitive {ro}. I like it, but
I don't think this is how {ro} is usually explained.

mi'e xorxes