Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15523
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 00:36:10 -0500
Received: by access1.digex.net id AA13339
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 00:36:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 00:36:09 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412140536.AA13339@access1.digex.net>
To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 14 00:36:14 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

>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