RE: Comments from pc on various issues

[I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

> le ka da broda

I've changed my mind about this.

At first, I shared Mark's dislike of usurping
{da} like this.  I don't much like using {ke'a} either
(we might need it for a genuine relativization),
but I thought we might use an unbound {ko'a}.
And of course you can usually use {ri} or {ra}.
(Can we have {ri xi re}?  Yes, apparently we can.)

But I'm now coming round to liking {da}.
If you have

        le ka da zo'u da broda

that's not so different in superficial appearance from

        <lambda> x: broda(x, ...)

and possibly not too distant in intention from
a more conventional prenex either.
And if I'm right in my assumption that the scope
of an implicit quantification is unspecified and
to-be-glorked, then this naturally abbreviates to

        le ka da broda

after all.

co'omi'e .i,n.