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 m0rGYbe-00007DC; Sat, 10 Dec 94 22:41 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1988; Sat, 10 Dec 94 22:41:41 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1986; Sat, 10 Dec 1994 22:41:40 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7679; Sat, 10 Dec 1994 21:38:22 +0100 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 15:44:47 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: plural To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 2289 Lines: 57 la lojbab spusku di'e mi > >I don't see how can you avoid using one or the other. For a given > >broda, {le broda} refers to individual broda while {lei broda} refers > >to a group/mass of them. You could use {lei broda} for a single broda, > >but if there are more than one you have to be explicit whether you are > >referring to them individually or as a group. > > Why do you say this? "le" descrioptions mean what the speakers wants them > to mean, provided they are understood. Yes, the referent is what the speaker has in mind, but the way they are distributed depends on whether you use {le} or {lei}. You could use {le broda} to refer to a mass of five broda, but then if you had to make the quantifier explicit that would be {le pa broda} = "the one thing that I'm designating as broda (and which happens to actually be a mass of five broda)". Doing that would be within the non-veridicality of {le}, but it would be extremely misleading. > "le nanmu" can refer to 3 men treated > as a single mass, if the speaker wants to - to be explicit without allowing > them to be separated, you could say le nanmu poi cimei. (or appropriate other > place of cimei). Ok, but it would be {le pa nanmu poi cimei}. It is possible, but extremely misleading. 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}. Suppose that there are five people in front of us, and I say: ro le prenu cu citka lo plise This I will understand to mean "Each of the (5) people eats an apple." But you are saying that it could also mean that the mass of five people, which I'm calling {le prenu}, eats an apple. It could, but it makes very little sense. > And in any case, the defualt inner quantifier is "su'opa" which says nothing > about singularity or plurality. I know. That's why I said the distinction between individual and group is not the same distinction English makes between singular and plural. If you use {le broda}, the referent is normally an individual broda for each event. If you use {lei broda} the referent is a group of broda for each event. Jorge