Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pWVQG-0000PgC; Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:27 EET
Message-Id: <m0pWVQG-0000PgC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2884; Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:26:50 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2882; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 21:26:50 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3757; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:25:50 +0100
Date:         Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:20:08 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 639
Lines: 18

> > 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