Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")

there is no explanation of the "zero article" in Latin, etc. for the simple reason that there is no zero article in Latin, etc.  The effects English achieves with the contrasts between "a(n)" and "the" and bare plurals. is achieved in Latin, etc. by other means.  Or the languages do without them.

Putting formalism first is fine, but then one should not be surprised if one finds that what one thought was doing one thing turns out not to do it (for all the "formalism first", the workers typically have some end results in mind and are striving to make the formalism for that -- as is clearly the case here).  r <=> l <=> s is a nice piece of  formalism, but it is unlikely that r, s and l are going to turn out to be the universal, particular, and selectional quantifiers you started out to formalize.  (And, of course, to make the idea even vaguely plausible, one has to move out of the formalism into the interpretation, the constantly shifting universes).