RE: [jboske] RE: lo'ie != lo'ei

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

I'm close to compromising, but of course I will withhold final 
judgement until someone like xod or Jordan chimes in.

I am reasonably close to accepting that l(x).broda(x) needs its own 
official gadri, and I think And's terms of reference on how the 
decision would be framed are acceptable to me. Me privately, obviously, 
not me BPFKJ. I do want to hear from other fundies.

My sticking points: (a) I want to be sure that Mr Broda isn't already 
being covered by {loi broda} (although if it is, I'm cool with that, 
because I'd prefer not to think of lx.broda(x) in terms of Mr Broda 
anyway); (b) I need to be utterly convinced that {jaika} can never work.

One thing, though? Arguments on the outer quantification of {lo se ka} 
are bogus, surely. It is grammatical but nonsensical to say {re loi} or 
{re lo'e}. If we agree that pragmatically, the referent of {jai ka} or 
{se ka} is always singulated, just as masses and generics are, then why 
can't we just say that {re lo se ka broda} is also nonsense? After all, 
{re lo pa broda} is nonsense. And in singulation, we have an inner 
quantifier of 1, by definition. Why can't we just accord the same 
status to {re lo se ka broda} as to {re lo pa broda}?

(*)(*)(*)
http://www.opoudjis.net DR NICK NICHOLAS; FRENCH & ITALIAN,
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE nickn@unimelb.edu.au
"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very 
Irish.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create 
something
so grotesque." -- Andrew Rosta