I don't see what's "lazy" about a plural satisfying a predicate collectively.
Isn't this example wrong?
What about the other two examples? Shouldn't {jo'u} or {ce} work
better here:
la .djan. joi la .pitr. cu re mei
John and Peter are two.
Again, no, because lo remei is defined as a mass. You could use
ce to make lo se remei, though. And I believe that la djan jo'u la
pitr would actually be two pamei, not a remei
Here at least in the usual IRC dialect I disagree. We've identified the
"lo plural type" as being constructed by {jo'u}, since otherwise {jo'u}
seemed rather useless and because we didn't have any other way to refer
to this type that we literally use in almost every sentence.
This is not an IRC invention; it's been in the BPFK pages for over 10 years, thanks to xorxes. Credit where credit is due.
For similar
reasons mei1 includes lo-groups in the IRC dialect. I have forgotten
whether it continuous to include masses.
Unless you are proposing a polymorphic/ambiguous {mei}, this doesn't make a lot of sense. {mei} let's you say how many referents a sumti has, it doesn't matter what you put in the x1 - {lo ci cinfo} has three referents, while {lo [pa] gunma be lo ci cinfo} has one referent.
If it doesn't then we need a
{brode} such that {loi PA broda cu brode li PA}.
See {cmimei}.