From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412192222.AA13449@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: plural
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:22:28 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199412110252.AA17514@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 11, 94 02:50:26 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1208
Status: RO

la .and. cusku di'e

> This may seem obvious for a selbri like prenu, but think about "eye", for
> example: "le pa [eye]" meaning "one pair of eyes" is fairly natural, &
> not necessarily misleading (to be sure whether it is, go and ask a
> native speaker of Lojban...).
> 
> In fact the problem of what is the unit of broda that we use for purposes
> of counting is one I haven't seen addressed. The English gloss of 'kanla'
> as 'eye' makes me assume "pa lo kanla" is one eye, but is that necessarily
> correct? Could pa lo kanla be a pair of eyes, the eyeage of one person,
> with a single eye being "pimu loi pa lo kanla"? The general point I'm
> making is that how you delimit one individual broda from another is as
> much part of the definition of broda as anything else is; it can't be
> taken for granted as self-evident, or inherent in the extramental
> world.

You are correct in principle, but it seems clear from existing usage that
the body parts are, in fact, counted in the same way as English: two legs
per {remna}, and a fortiori two eyes, so "pa lo kanla [be zo'e]" is one
of somebody's eyes.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.