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

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

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> > > 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
> 
> Ok, separating the o/e/a distinction from the other distinctions
> of gadri is nice, but is using the set gadri for that the best
> choice? We could do the same using {ro(lo)}, {(ro)le} and {(ro)la},
> which also saves a syllable but, more importantly for me, it agrees
> better with the way I had understood LAhEs to work. Then we have:
> 
> set: lu'iro lu'ile lu'ila (=lo'i/le'i/la'i)
> quantified: PA(ro) PAle PAla
> substance: lu'oiro lu'oile lu'oila
> collective: lu'oro lu'ole lu'ola (=(piro)loi/lei/lai)
> 'unique': lu'airo lu'aile lu'aila (=lo'e/le'e/ )

Fine. My choice of lV'i was partly to even up length when I was
also using lau'V, partly because of the way I was thinking of
LAhE as working, and partly because I hadn't been clever enough
to think of using {ro} rather than {lo}.

> (I mischievously interchanged your lu'o and lu'oi.)

Fine by me.

I wonder how xod's idea of "Substance = cardinality tu'o" would
fit in here. Tentatively:

substance: lu'aitu'o lu'ailetu'o lu'ailatu'o

(does LA allow an inner cardinality? It should, but ...)

Hmm. I'm not wowed by that.

> This has the advantage of being able to include partial sets and
> collectives within the same paradigm:
> 
> subset: lu'isu'o lu'isu'ole lu'isu'ola
> sub-coll.: lu'osu'o lu'osu'ole lu'osu'ola

OK. I am won over. You and I are in agreement.

--And.