RE: [jboske] Jboskeists go down with the pox (was: RE: Can't keep away

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

xorxes:
> >(BTW, for Substance gadri, I am rather taken by xod's suggestion of
> >using not a special gadri or LAhE but an inner tu'o.)
> 
> I like it too. With which gadri? It would seem it has to be
> {lo'e tu'o cakla}, because {lo tu'o cakla} reintroduces
> countability with the outer quantifier. 

Aha! My cool magic solution is to scrap the rules for implicit
outer quantifiers, except when there is an overt non-tu'o inner
PA.

> This might even be
> useful in some cases: {ci lo ro jipci} would be three chickens,
> whereas {ci lo tu'o jipci} would be "three quantities of chicken"
> introducing a different countability after tu'o erased the normal
> countability of {jipci} 

Yes, why not, though by my scheme the tu'o would have to be overt
here.

I am inevitably proved wrong in these sentiments, but I really feel
as though we are heading to an excellent solution. No doubt we will
fail to get there, though, or at least not until a great deal of
further anguish has been gone through.

--And.