Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:15:17 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: reply: (1) veridicality
In-reply-to: (Your message of Wed,
 14 Dec 94 00:36:09 EST.) <199412140536.AA13339@access1.digex.net>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HKMIQQXSAA000205@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 706
Lines: 18

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