Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA04628
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:34:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199501242334.AA04628@nfs2.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0152; Tue, 24 Jan 95 18:36:17 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7453; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:16:00 -0500
Date:         Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:17:30 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: whiskey lovers
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jan 24 18:34:31 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Exactly.  ka are thosse properties of the relationsship that help you
> determine the truth value.  SSometimes the properties can be specific to
> only one of the sumti in the relationship, or rather try to look at the
> relationssship from the point of view of the one participant.  This is
> what Cowan has specified should be marked with a lambda variable "dakau"
> (that should be "role"/sumti-place, not "participant", in the lasts sentence.

Has Cowan really specified that? I've been arguing that {dakau} cannot
be the lambda variable because as an indirect question it would have a
conflict, for example in:

        ko'a ko'e frica le ka XXXX skari makau
        Koha and kohe differ in what colour THEY are.

where XXXX stands for the lambda variable.

I don't think it has been decided what is the lambda variable. I suggested
{ke'a}, but if it can't be {ke'a} then it should be a new cmavo, never
{dakau}.

Jorge