On 10.10.2016 02:08, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Would "no" become "no'oi" as well?
Yes, I believe it must and should.
And singular "no" is then "no pa", right?
Yes, I would say so.
I think the expansion should be:
PA broda cu brode -> su'oi da poi PA mei lo broda cu brode
which I think would work for all the numeric quantifiers:
[da'a][su'o|su'e|me'i|za'u|ji'i] n; so'V; du'e, mo'a, rau; and also for
ru'o.
This seems to be pretty much the same as the {ru'o} expansion.
But I think it's only equivalent if you subscribe to {lo}'s maximality. (It wouldn't be the first expansion that presupposes maximality even though we never decided that {lo} must have maximality)
So, I take it, you do subscribe to maximality? (I do)
But {me'i} and {za'u} can be considered prefixes. I had thought
{me'i PA da} would mean {su'oi da poi me'i PA mei}. A definition in
terms of {ru'o} would also be possible, but I'm not sure that it
would be better. It would mean allowing prefixes (like "<" and ">")
to turn non-{ru'o} numerical quantifiers into {ru'o}-type
quantifiers, and this requires a good justification.
What do you mean by non-ru'o numerical quantifiers? su'oi, ro'oi, no'oi,
me'oi are non-ru'o, in the sense that they don't expand to a "su'oi da
poi PA mei" form. (I don't even know what "PA mei" would mean for them.)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant "non-{ru'o}" in a {noi} way. All numerical quantifiers are of the non-{ru'o} type. Your prefixes turn them into {ru'o} types.