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 m0r7b8p-00006eC; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:34 EET
Message-Id: <m0r7b8p-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0787; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:34:50 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0786; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:34:49 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8772; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:31:22 +0100
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:44:51 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: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 520
Lines: 12

> This proposal involves creating an explicit "lambda quantifier", which would
> formally belong to selma'o PA but would be attached only to da-series KOhA
> or BY cmavo.

Any reason why this is preferred to a simple KOhA?

Also, it would be nice if we could just use {ke'a} for it. Its function is
very similar, and the problems that might arise in rare cases of embedding
arise already anyway as it is, so in theory subscripts have to be used.
(In practice I don't think this is needed enough to be a problem.)

Jorge