Re: LAhE and quantifiers

xorxes:
> 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.

I agree with everything you say here.

On the whole I can't see *any* coherent & saliently useful function for
lu'o and lu'i.

--And.