> >Yes. If Nick wants to deviate from CLL then the sensible way to do
> >it is by making the default quantifier the one that is semantically
> >vacuous. That way, bare {loi} actually means "loi"
>
> I think everyone is missing the point of specifying the default
> quantifiers. They are the broadest/vaguest form of the normal implicatures
> when numbers are elliptical, not "what the sentence always means"
Either have no default, or have a definite unglorked elliptizable
value. This halfarsed notion of default that you propose does nothing
more than interfere with Gricean processes, making communication
needlessly difficult. (Because it will be unclear whether the intended
interpretation is the one that is the official default or the one
that might be a little more likely in context.)