From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 11 13:44:01 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0P53-0000w6-MK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:41 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0P51-0000vf-Ef for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:41 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id s2so2449525uge for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=IAq2uOuofz/2DTYoEBEiMPnM3JcykPz8urDz4SdeWlLMBTEwIbPlqCuqcH5fs4trr/9IA+WcciASnRfEcYyNppz3d0rZkd4kNPKfsRqQ9juuWyF8nXrLTBx4LYbfROt/676WTJ7N+G+tXtvYENwFX0tPz4Rhqvv4oEvJCGiT1UA= Received: by 10.78.136.7 with SMTP id j7mr35244hud; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.33.3 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160607111343q524bd62avb0446ae25cf9fcb2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:43:37 -0400 From: "komfo,amonan" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_55033_12396640.1152650617680" References: <20060711202019.94622.qmail@web56411.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c8f3ff52086bd760 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 12114 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_55033_12396640.1152650617680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/11/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > 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. It is not unusual for lines between 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 to be drawn -- singular, dual, plural. This was normal in the Semitic languages and in ancient, ancient Greek. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan ------=_Part_55033_12396640.1152650617680 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 7/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/11/06, Nathaniel Krause <nathanielkrause@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com > 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.

It is not unusual for lines between 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 to be drawn -- singular, dual, plural. This was normal in the Semitic languages and in ancient, ancient Greek.
mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

------=_Part_55033_12396640.1152650617680-- 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.