From lojbab Sat Dec 10 01:16:14 1994
Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA20283
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Sat, 10 Dec 1994 01:16:12 -0500
Received: by access1.digex.net id AA29919
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Sat, 10 Dec 1994 01:16:04 -0500
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 01:16:04 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412100616.AA29919@access1.digex.net>
To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: plural
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

>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.  "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).

And in any case, the defualt inner quantifier is "su'opa" which says nothing
about singularity or plurality.

The essence about having number be optional is NOT That you have to not be able
to tell the difference, but that it is not mandatory to make a grammmatical 
distinction when number is unimportant to your expression/claim.

lojbab