Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA21137 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:17:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199412140717.AA21137@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7823; Wed, 14 Dec 94 02:16:54 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1161; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:16:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:15:17 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 14 Dec 94 00:36:09 EST.) <199412140536.AA13339@access1.digex.net> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 14 02:17:06 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Lojbab: > >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. > > 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). Can you write me the proposition grammatically encoded by "la lojbab cilre lo cukta" in predicate calculs form, without there being a bound variable? I think not. --- And