Re: cukta

[i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> This brings up a (totally unrelated) question that I made myself some time
> ago, and I had forgotten about it.

> {ro lo klama} means the same as {ro lo klama be ?ma}

> Is {zo'e} the right answer?

I think it has to be - but this raises in my mind the question of the meaning
of constructions such as {lo klama be ro da} and {lo klama be da},
or conversely how you talk about "all goers, irrespective of destination".
How does the quantification work inside a description?

I suppose {lo klama be ro da} must be one who goes to every destination,
and {lo klama be da}, assuming {da} is currently unbound, is one who goes
to some destination (no matter which).  So the {da} becomes implicitly
bound *inside* the description, and {ro klama be da} are the members of
the set {x: exists(y): klama(x,y,...)}.

Is this right?

mi'e .i,n.