> > > It's sensible to talk about two
> > > collectives of people, so if 'loi prenu' is a collective of people, then
> > > 're loi prenu' should be two collectives of people
> >
> >No, no more than 're lo'i prenu' would mean two sets of people
>
> I agree for LE-gadri, which admit a single underlying set
which gadri do you mean by 'LE-gadri'?
> But I think {re lu'o lo prenu} should work. {lu'o lo prenu} > is a collective of some people, and there are many possible > such collectives, so {lu'o} should be quantifiable. Same > with {re lu'i lo prenu} for "two sets of (some) people" > > There has never been a strict definition of how LAhEs work > though
I dislike this. I think "lu'o/lu'i lo prenu" should mean "there are some people, each of whom is in lu'V, each of whose constitutents is one of the people". That gives us the meaning of "lau'i".
And LAhE is not a selbri: it doesn't mean "is a set"; rather it is a function, deriving a unique output from its argument.
That does make sense but it is not how I've thought of LAhEs so far. I think I have to think it over for a bit.
So if {re lu'o/lu'i lo prenu} mean anything, they should be
equivalent to {re lu'a lu'o/lu'i lo prenu} = {re lo prenu}.
But then would we need lo/le at all? Why not just use {su'o lo'i broda} instead of {lo broda}, {ro le'i broda} instead of {le broda}, etc.?