> I don't agree {lu'a} is unnecessary because I would read > {ro lu'i} as "every set" rather than "every member of the set"
I understand. The reason I disagree is that lu'a or an individuals gadri must be preceded by a quantifier, while the other LAhE and gadri mustn't be. Hence I see "individuals" as equivalent to "quantified".
Then lu'a/le/lo/la are always redundant and could be replaced by quantifiers? We already knew {lo} was always redundant, but with your idea they all are. {le} is just a concise form of {ro le'i}? And it can also be written as {ro lei}?