RE: [jboske] default quantifiers (was: RE: individuation and masses

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> >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.?

A few days ago I posted a paradigm that concluded just this.

set: lu'ilo'i lu'ile'i lu'ila'i
quantified: PAlo'i PAle'i PAla'i = PAlo/le/la
substance: lu'olo'i lu'ole'i lu'ola'i
collective: lu'oilo'i lu'oile'i lu'oila'i
'unique': lu'ailo'i lu'aile'i lu'aila'i

+ if typicality is to be done by gadri:

archetype: lu'eilo'i lu'eile'i lu'eila'i

AFAICS the only objection to these is their polysyllabicity.
I strove to make them all the same length, even though some
of them admit shorter versions due to the accidents of
Lojban history.

--And.