summary: the lo'ei debate resolved (was: RE: resolving the lo'ei debate? (was: RE: RE: Llamban

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

Summary of where we are so far:

1. The main protagonists in the debate agree that there is a good
utilitarian case for {lo'ei} and {le'ei} being in the language.
2. We have a pretty good understanding of what {lo'ei} and {le'ei} 
mean.
3. We all agree that {lo'ei} and {le'ei} aren't equivalent to
official {lo'e} and {le'e}, but they are equivalent in the
Llambian idiom/dialect (and have been so consistently for
the last 8 years).

This still leaves the questions:
* What do official {lo'e} and {le'e} mean?
* How do we express various sorts of generics?

I dealt with these in an earlier message ("Carving the lo'e debate
into shape"). I can repost the relevant portion, if anyone wants me 
to.

--And.