Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 00:36:09 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKMFAZLCNA0001PV@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To:         ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 829
Lines: 23

>Most of the UIs are like this, I suspect. Only strong irony would lead
>us to use them nonliterally (& arguably, if irony is a form of quotation
>then irony is not necessarily nonliteral).
>
>But "lo" does have a use other than as a veridicality particle.
>"lo broda" = "da poi broda", i.e. existential quantification,
>while "le broda" doesn't - "le broda" is a reference to a constant,
>not toa bound variable.
>--More--
>
>---
>And
>
>[p.s. It was a rare pleasure for me to receive a message saying
>"I basically agree with you"!]
 
But I can't agree with you.  That equals sign is not correct.  "lo broda"
does not reference any particular bound variable.  It implies that there
could be an alternate phrasing using a bound variable (although there are
still questions of scope for such a variable, last I recall).
 
lojbab