Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:17:01 -0500
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:16:54 -0500
Message-Id: <199402141916.AA02296@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 4374; Mon, 14 Feb 94 14:15:02 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 3244; Mon, 14 Feb 94 14:07:32 EDT
Date:         Mon, 14 Feb 1994 19:05:20 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: cukta
X-To:         jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 14 19:05:20 1994
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> This brings up a (totally unrelated) question that I made myself some time
> ago, and I had forgotten about it.

> {ro lo klama} means the same as {ro lo klama be ?ma}

> Is {zo'e} the right answer?

I think it has to be - but this raises in my mind the question of the meaning
of constructions such as {lo klama be ro da} and {lo klama be da},
or conversely how you talk about "all goers, irrespective of destination".
How does the quantification work inside a description?

I suppose {lo klama be ro da} must be one who goes to every destination,
and {lo klama be da}, assuming {da} is currently unbound, is one who goes
to some destination (no matter which).  So the {da} becomes implicitly
bound *inside* the description, and {ro klama be da} are the members of
the set {x: exists(y): klama(x,y,...)}.

Is this right?

mi'e .i,n.