Re: LAhE and quantifiers

la and cusku di'e

> > I now think that the simplest definition is the best
> > (as usual): {lu'i} = {lo selcmi be}.
[...] 
> I don't disagree with you, but I think that under this definition lu'i/lu'o
> are sufficiently redundant and sufficiently far from CLL-intent that they
> could in principle be reassigned to some altogether different but more
> useful function.

OK. I will just say that _if_ lu'i/lu'o will take members/components 
as their complement, then I favour the simple {lo selcmi be} definition 
to other more intrincate definitions.

> One no less CLL-compliant definition would be to make lu'i a mass-to-set
> converter and lu'o a set-to-mass converter. To the extent that the set/mass
> distinction is worth preserving at all, I think I might prefer these
> definitions.

The set-to-mass and mass-to-set are {lo su'omei be}, {lo se su'omei be}
with the official definition of {mei}. If {mei} is rescued for something
more useful, we can use {lo girzu be fi} and {lo te girzu be fi} for the
converters (unless the place structure of girzu is fixed too, I suppose).

In any case, if {loi} can be quantified, so that we can say {ci loi broda} 
for "three groups of broda", then I don't think {lu'o} is very useful.
I don't have a preference as to how it is defined as long as it has a 
clear definition.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com