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 #1) id m0qmgit-00005aC; Mon, 19 Sep 94 14:17 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qmgit-00005aC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8140; Mon, 19 Sep 94 13:23:49 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8139; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 13:23:45 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6287; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 12:22:35 +0200
Date:         Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:22:32 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: any
X-To:         dfs@HILBERT.MATHS.UTAS.EDU.AU
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 316
Lines: 6

A quick skim of your article suggests that your new category of 'objects' may
match our intended usage for "lo", but I will have to look at it further, and
maybe ask more questions.  Lojban "lo" permits quantification, but the extent
to which it is analyzable by traditional predicate logic is not complete.

lojbab