RE: [jboske] la, lai, me

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

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >But as things stand, the x2 of me fails to export to the prenex in
> >an ordinary way, & I'm confident we would find logical problems
> >aplenty with that.
> 
> But {me} doesn't have an x2. {me <sumti>} is a one place brivla
> and it is proper that the quantifier fail to export. Indeed it might
> make sense to say that {me} anihilates the quantifier turning
> <sumti> into a type of which {me} selects an instance. (You
> explained {me} as something like that at some point.)

Righto. Yes, that is how I interpret {me}. 

So if you want the quantifier to export, you have to do it 
overtly.

My objection to your story (= the Official one) is that it 
neutralizes the le/lei lo/loi la/lai contrasts. In a sense,
it would be better to insist on le'i, lo'i, la'i as the
complement of {me}.

> >FWIW, for me, {me} means "x1 has the property of x2hood",
> 
> Would that be:
> 
> ko'a me ko'e = ko'a ckaci le ka tu'o ko'e zo'u ce'u du ko'e
> 
> That keeps any quantifier of ko'e out of the picture.

That's possible, I guess. Or, if xod is right that cmima
means "x1 is of type x2", then {ko'a me ko'e} would mean
{ko'a cmima ko'e}.

--And.