Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:27:25 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

. Is the goal just to provide the basis for a
wiki record that can guide the usage of those who care to be guided?
Or are we invited to express our preferences?

I prefer Jorge's version, because (a) it matches the dialect I've
always had, in several important ways (preserving equivalence of
lo & su'o da, treatment of 'inner quantifiers'), and (b) the contexts
in which existential import is relevant are sufficiently rare and special
that they justify the relatively explicit and unordinary marking that
Jorge's system would give them.

Not your your preferences, which may be terribly ill-informed or misguided, but your reasoning about the situation.  I will, of course, have no patience with anyone who holds that {ro} does not imply {su'o} , while xorxes will greet them like long-lost brothers.  But even they might at least supply their evidence to see whether there is some room for using this to eventually lay down a wiki page on the matter with some decisive statements on the issue.
I would have said that the cases where a free quantifier is relevant (rarely outside of mathematics) are too rare to be taken up with such choice forms.