From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 28 15:01:58 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fvi6N-0004S7-Cw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:39 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fvi6M-0004Rz-2R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:39 -0700 Received: (qmail 22539 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Jun 2006 22:01:36 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=5uUbGS6qjdexbhscNQryTS7yBKeCAL0Cmfni/mMnf8ZeKOeIaRPJhtDvxd7jF4kOHbYZqEa/gvpELiNH5vCYK0SrAprI3mRi1ojkffFpgvOMIKvwlYqakRBiPsHWWxlkm2/e++5wxwdkzAzOWtLuOF8AgPED5S8sOdQ4hWehNZk= ; Message-ID: <20060628220136.22537.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.230.116] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:36 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: plural markers? To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <737b61f30606281242y68b8291fh2fa172f439b268c5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11850 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Sometimes it is not a bad idea to put in a tense or modal. I took it as {ta'e} or some such, since I couldn't find it either. Maybe he has just come to this point of view. In any case, I welcome another piece of evidence that the plural "problem" is going away. --- Chris Capel wrote: > Funny. I interpreted him as saying {mi ta'e cusku} or {mi na'o cusku}, > as opposed to {mi pu cusku}. As in, "Yeah, I've been saying the same > thing", not "I said that earlier." (And looking back, I don't see > where he did.) > > On 6/28/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > Sorry I missed it. It is a fundamental point about Lojban, which gets missed in our > Anglocentric > > fondness for marked number. > > > > --- HeliodoR wrote: > > > > > > So -- context permitting -- the best plural is just the form without > > > internal quantifiers at all. > > > > > > mi cusku lo mintu be di'u > > > > > > > > > mi'e darves > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > > > > > > -- > "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it > like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" > -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.