RE: [jboske] Subject: RE: lo/le definition

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

xod:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> > Nick:
> > > Now I don't know who I'm disagreeing with.. 
> >
> > You and I seem to be converging 
> >
> > We roughly agree that inner ro forces a countable interpretation and that
> > inner tu'o forces an uncountable interpretation 
> > We agree that this potentially makes the lo/loi contrast redundant,
> > but we don't yet agree on how to reconcile this with the fact that
> > SL wants to use lo/loi to mark countability 
> 
> Use loi to mark collectivity then, a distinction which has nothing or
> little to do with quantification. It's nobody's problem that certain
> grammatically-possible quantifier permutations become meaningless with loi
> when loi is interpreted as collective only 

In Excellent Solution 4.0, {(Q) loi (Q) broda} does jbomass and
{loi Q LE} does collectivity. {(pa) loi za'u broda} also gives
a collectivity.

I'm pretty confident ExSol 4.0 does everything anybody would want
to say, in a pretty internally-consistent way. 

--And.