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 m0rFGhg-00006wC; Wed, 7 Dec 94 09:22 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7161; Wed, 07 Dec 94 09:22:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7159; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:22:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3205; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:19:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 07:20:18 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 06 Dec 94 20:13:48 EST.) Content-Length: 1340 Lines: 31 Jorge: > And: > > Since the collective/distributive distinction only makes sense for > > categories with >1 member, and since we seem to feel that lVi is > > more 'marked' than lV, it is true that lVi pragmatically implies > > plurality. But this is not a grammatical number distinction, of > > course, and it doesn't apply to distributives: lV does not pragmatically > > imply singularity > > But it does. A distributed plurality is not a real plurality. It is as far as language is concerned, typically. English doesn't use mass nouns in such contexts: it uses either a plural noun or a singular noun with a distributive pronoun (each person rose). It is always clear that the reference is to members of a multiple set. > I think that most uses of plural in English correspond to {lei} in > Lojban (or loi when appropriate). Sometimes English does use the plural > marking for the distributive sense, but I think that is the minority of > cases. English is always unambiguous (or virtually always - I hedge without thinking of exceptions) in distinguishing between reference to single things vs members of multiple sets. And I very much doubt that most uses of the plural ought to be translated lVi (or at least oughtn't to be translated lV). You can test that by examining the plurals in this paragraph, as I have just done. --- And