"Could you please..." "Yes"

Jimc writes:
>By the way, I think both of us are abusing "lo" in that the currently
>official default quantification is "ro - all", so

Um, no.  {lo} is defined (draft lesson, p. 5-26): "a referent which is a
*subset* of the set ... [whose members] accurately [meet] the x1 sumti of
the bridi relationship ..." (emphasis mine, and I replaced the set with its
members, since that what was meant).  So (unless something's changed), I
can use {lo} to mean a (possibly empty) subset, not the whole.

Otherwise, thanks for your correction of veridicality.

~mark