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 m0pW8oT-0000PeC; Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:18 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0398; Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:17:08 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0395; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:17:08 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6182; Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:16:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 19:05:20 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 859 Lines: 23 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.