From lojbab Wed Dec 7 01:43:35 1994 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 01:43:30 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412070643.AA07557@access4.digex.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO >What I think is malglico (but not carmi malglico) is not the decision >not to make number distinctions obligatory, but rather the failure to >design in a short & simple way to indicate plurality. But why plurality in paritcular. Why not singular/dual/su'oci? Or why not the Russian system which is singular/2-5/su'oxa but then after 20 cycles again on the last 1 or 2 digits so that 21 is singular? (Russian also does have a straight plural but it is not used when there is a specific number involved.) I think Chinese also has a different way of indicating number than the standard European model, but perhaps our Chinese readers can add to this. (Veijo speak up for Finnish, too, since it is also non I-E). lojbab