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 m0rF7T0-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 23:30 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9356; Tue, 06 Dec 94 23:30:47 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9350; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 23:30:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0558; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 22:27:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:20:44 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 06 Dec 94 03:22:32 EST.) <199412060822.AA07253@access1.digex.net> Content-Length: 1667 Lines: 34 Lojbab: > >[Indeed, in one respect I think the desire to avoid being malglico > >has gone full cirle and ended up very malglico indeed: I am thinking > >of the lack of any convenient way to make the logically and > >typologically important distinction between singular and plural > >(suhore is a bit of a mouthful) - my reading of this is that it > >results from a desire to be unEnglish, even though number distinctions > >are widespread among languages. Apologies if my guess at the history > >of this is wrong.] > > Which it is, I think. This dates from the earliest incarnations of Loglan. > A language which is culturally neutral AND metaphysically parsimonious makes > as few assumptions about what distinctions are important as possible. The > importance of singular/plural is not important in ALL situations in all > languages, likewise tense, likewise individual/mass/abstraction. [...] > The fact that su'ore is long bespeaks the fact that it is explicitly marked. I applaud making all distinctions optional, unless they are logically inescapable (e.g. le v. lo. v. lohe...). I applaud tense being optional. But we do have pu/ba/ca - 3 very short cmavo explicitly designed into the language. So yes, tense must be shown by additional markers, but not by something as circumlocutory as "suhore". Nothing is unsayable: all number distinctions made by other langs can be made in Lojban. But the number of syllables it requires exerts a bias on usage. 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. ---- And