From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 11 13:28:38 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0OqB-0000kL-Uo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:20 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0OqB-0000kC-3O for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:19 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d42so3970815pyd for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Em4gEyCtwqehOnMUvqnspu6JmDV7lSAc49R2SO6mQKkaK86zTywisWDVU5hcqQGwxf+ckyPaazgERBeHPHShbq5UmDnD1a2jkk6RpQ1Fv65idk2s7bixx/1oshdlo1qISGFaR2+EQtoo2blV5HnxpjkN5k1h79dnIy4fiaLMxaA= Received: by 10.35.103.12 with SMTP id f12mr7124935pym; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.7 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:28:16 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060711202019.94622.qmail@web56411.mail.re3.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060711202019.94622.qmail@web56411.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 12112 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/11/06, Nathaniel Krause wrote: > > > Maxim Katcharov wrote: > When I first started > learning Lojban, I found the translation of English plurals strange. > {su'o re la gerku} seemed like an unintuitive and deficient > translation of "the dogs" - is that really the only reason we have > plurals? was the distinction between numerical 1 and all those numbers > greater than 1 - was this distinction by itself important enough to > have such a great effect on language? I didn't think much of it at the > time, but looking back now I find that this corresponds to my > position. It is my understanding that the large difference between 1 > and >1 stems from how our minds treat single entities vs single > entities composed of many entities. > "su'o re la gerku" is about as good a translation of "the dogs" as anything > you'd find in Chinese. That is, it's certainly possible to have a > functioning language that ignores the difference between 1 and >1. > I don't suggest that a language would not function without plurals, but that it's odd that the line was drawn between 1 and 2. Without an explanation for this, one would think that there are languages out there that have a pervasive plural that makes itself known between 2 and 3, for example. > Interestingly, Chinese does have a plural, but it can only be used to > describe people. > Elaborate? 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.