Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r2qTB-00005YC; Thu, 3 Nov 94 02:56 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1438; Thu, 03 Nov 94 02:56:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1434; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 02:56:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9336; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 01:53:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 19:01:29 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: singular and plural X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1039 Lines: 23 > I don't see why we would want to have both {le} and {lo} as singular > terms, and no simple quantifier expression. ... > > Because Lojban does *not* consider singular and plural to be primary. Sorry, I wasn't using "singular" in its usual sense as opposite of "plural", but in the way pc used it to distinguish from the "quantified" case. What I meant is that it seems a waste to have {le} and {lo} for the specific case, and no simple non-specific case. > The primary distinction in Lojban is between `that which I designate > in my head' and `that which is real according to the epistimology and > context of the conversation'. This distinction makes sense in the case where both {le} and {lo} are specific. As long as {lo} has the {su'o} quantifier, it can't be specific. In any case, I'm glad that I finally understand where so much emphasis on veridicality comes from. If that was the original distinction between {le} and {lo} it was killed as the defining distinction when {lo} was given the {su'o} quantifier. Jorge