From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 12 05:32:24 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0dsZ-0004zw-2r for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:31:47 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0dsW-0004zo-EP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:31:46 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so275385pye for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:31:43 -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=oo+W9CzJW8u/ZBp2qSENIOMmwpgZWXrODk2mwJUW55hV3CgKSwxFdv5d63z5GUdnDa63IudH1iH0KgYzGJDNSVGib1lf8hvVjr6/NAlXmKXN8uv8Dg1kCtxB52HIaZWmo7htA1nSJcXZ9nihxUgMZik8p4ryVLiROnbMqDX8yPg= Received: by 10.35.101.9 with SMTP id d9mr779647pym; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607120531v7de5bfefwa96db493b274fbdf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:31:43 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12147 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/12/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 7/11/06, And Rosta wrote: > > 2. It was my immersion in lojbanology that made me realize that there is something somehow fundamental to the singular--plural distinction, in that only plurals, and not singulars, are sensitive to a collective--distributive distinction. > > Good point. I'd like to know how this is accounted for in the > pluralist system (or rather, the system that opposes mine). How you make the distinction between distributive and non-distributive? With {ro} for distributive and {lo'u} for non-distributive: ro ko'a broda (distributive) lo'u ko'a broda (non-distributive) ko'a broda (unmarked for distributivity) What And is saying is that when ko'a has a single referent, there is no distinction between the distributive and the non-distributive cases. That is indeed a special property of singular referents, you don't need to distinguish distributive and non-distributive predication for them. > If not > because of how I describe things to work, then why is it that it is > strange and perhaps impossible to treat singulars collectively? It is just as strange to treat them distributively. The distinction makes no sense for singulars. We don't say "each cat is in the house" when there is only one cat. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.