Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0s9zG7-0009acC; Fri, 12 May 95 21:16 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0s9zG7-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id B4DFED85 ; Fri, 12 May 1995 20:16:19 +0100
Date:         Fri, 12 May 1995 19:04:43 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu,
              Dylan Thurston <dpt@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 11 May 95 10:15:10 D.)
Content-Length: 589
Lines: 15

> But I was asking about the difference between {le} and {lo} (which
> seems to parallel the difference between {lei} and {loi}).

To decide whether {le cukta cu blanu} is true, first work out which
entity the speaker means {le cukta} to refer to, and then check whether
it is blanu.
To decide whether {lo cukta cu blanu} is true, inspect the intersection
of the set of all cukta and the set of all blanu. If the intersection
is non-empty, then the proposition is true. If it's empty, it's false.

{lo} works like an existentially quantified variable.
{le} works like a constant.

---
And