[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> I don't agree {lu'a} is unnecessary because I would read
> {ro lu'i} as "every set" rather than "every member of the set"
I understand. The reason I disagree is that lu'a or an individuals
gadri must be preceded by a quantifier, while the other LAhE and
gadri mustn't be. Hence I see "individuals" as equivalent to
"quantified".
Then lu'a/le/lo/la are always redundant and could be replaced by
quantifiers? We already knew {lo} was always redundant, but
with your idea they all are. {le} is just a concise form of
{ro le'i}? And it can also be written as {ro lei}?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf