RE: [jboske] lau'i = lu'i su'o? (was: RE: anaphora & glorking

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

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> > > 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}?

Yes (to all questions). (According to my thinking in the last week
or two.)

--And.