[Mark E. Shoulson: la <letteral>]

[David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!INFORMIX.COM!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!cortesi>]

[me]   So at least: la ga'e ty moi == "that which I call T'th"

[mark]
> Yes, that'd work, but think about it.  It really doesn't seem to be what
> you want.  Would you go around calling the number one "that which I call
> the first"?  "moi" is probably the wrong word, you'd do better with "mei",
> and eve that stinks.

Not at all: moi is for making a label out of an ordinal.
This is what I've been trying to achieve: a label as a sumti.  It does
sound strange when you use a number ("that which I call 4-th" -- well,
is it 4th or isn't it? perhaps it *was* fourth in an order that has
since been disarranged).  But if you are going to label variables with
letter (strings), I think this is how you'd have to talk about those
variables as variables.

> The more I think about it, the more I consider that
> the best route is simply "li ty".  See, that's the value T, just like "li
> ci" is the value 3 or "li ny" is the value N.  "li" converts
> letteral-strings to sumti, which is what you want here.  Just as "li pa
> su'i pa du li re" (1+1=2), we have "li ty .e ty du li ty" (T and T = T) (I
> may be misusing .e as logical AND).

Don't know about .e; Bob? But if LI is the evaluator function (lambda?)
which returns the value stored under a label, or applies a function to
get the value it returns, then it is the complement to the LA exercise.
LA names the variable, LI names its contents.  Both are required, yes?