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 m0rGecZ-00007DC; Sun, 11 Dec 94 05:06 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4519; Sun, 11 Dec 94 05:07:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4516; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 05:06:59 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5457; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 04:03:40 +0100 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 02:50:26 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: plural To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 10 Dec 94 15:44:47 EST.) Content-Length: 1120 Lines: 23 Jorge: > One thing is to designate something that is not quite a broda but is very > similar to one as {le broda}. A very different thing is to designate something > that is a group of broda (taken as a unit) as {le broda}, especially since > the obvious way would be to say {lei broda}. This may seem obvious for a selbri like prenu, but think about "eye", for example: "le pa [eye]" meaning "one pair of eyes" is fairly natural, & not necessarily misleading (to be sure whether it is, go and ask a native speaker of Lojban...). In fact the problem of what is the unit of broda that we use for purposes of counting is one I haven't seen addressed. The English gloss of 'kanla' as 'eye' makes me assume "pa lo kanla" is one eye, but is that necessarily correct? Could pa lo kanla be a pair of eyes, the eyeage of one person, with a single eye being "pimu loi pa lo kanla"? The general point I'm making is that how you delimit one individual broda from another is as much part of the definition of broda as anything else is; it can't be taken for granted as self-evident, or inherent in the extramental world. --- And