WikiDiscuss

> >>>* Please make it clear the tu'o thing is provisional until the BPFK
> >>>gets there.
> >>>
> >>tu'o is a "best practice"; it is a usage that doesn't affect the
> >>official meaning of tu'o, and therefore never goes before the BPFK.
> >
> >That's not what xorxes has been saying.
>
> Which has he been saying?

Quoting from a conversation between him and arj:

> My objections to the current proposal that are as yet unresolved:
>
> 3. {tu'o} as an inner quantifier is, as I understand it, either a
> special
> case that magically turns {lo} into a generic mass article, or else is
> intended to be a part of the general quantifier system.

{tu'o} is not mentioned in the definition of {lo}, not even
in the examples. Its meaning as an inner quantifier has to be
proposed and voted on when defining {tu'o}, that's why I only
mentioned it under "notes".

> If the latter, it does not appear to fit stringently into the system.
> It appears to be one of these clever tricks that immediately make
> sense, but does not really hold when people try to think inside the
> system, instead of standing on the outside1.

If you don't think it fits into the system, vote against it when
it is proposed in the definition of {tu'o}.

In resonse to PC (I think):

... I didn't want to include {tu'o}
in the definition of {lo} because it is rather marginal. I doubt
it will be used much if at all. Substances don't really
need special marking in most cases. Since this is really
about {tu'o} more than about {lo}, it should be treated in
the definition of {tu'o}.

-Robin