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 m0rEvk3-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 10:59 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8787; Tue, 06 Dec 94 10:59:36 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8785; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:59:36 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0187; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:56:18 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:56:02 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1964 Lines: 45 >At the risk of invoking the ire of the gods, I will say that in my >opinion Lojban does distinguish between singular and plural, albeit >not exactly like English. > >That is the basic distinction between {le} and {lei}. (Also between >--More-- >lo and loi, but it is easier to see it in the specific case.) > > le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno > Each of the three men carries the piano > >is really three statements in disguise, each of them describing an >event for a single man. > > lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno > The three men carry the piano > >is the statement in plural form. It describes a single event, of >three men carrying the piano. > >If you simply say {lei nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, you could in principle >be referring to a single man, but what for? If it was really a single >man you would just say {le nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, so at least >pragmatically {lei nanmu} is the plural form. Consider the gods ired %^) Both of your first two examples ARE plurals. One of them CAN expand into 3 (a plural number) separate singuklar sentences. But until you expand it, it is just as plural as the second one. The English "The three men carry the piano" could mean EITHER of these two interpretations, with pragmatics being the deciding factor. "The three men carry the log across the field more clearly indicates this ambiguity - it could either be "le" or "lei", and indeed could be piro lei or pisu'o lei. But the important thing about neutrality on this shows up in cases where English doesn't make a singular/plural distinction - that is when English uses masses. Replace "nanmu" by "djacu" in the above exampoles and you see where English breaks down (assume that the piano floats %^). Lojban does not require that you decide that the carrier be one water or three waters, which is good because my English mind has to stretch to picture three waters carrying a piano, especially with the "lei" version. lojbab