Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 02:24:02 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412070724.AA07958@access4.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec  7 02:24:07 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

>And:
>> Since the collective/distributive distinction only makes sense for
>> categories with >1 member, and since we seem to feel that lVi is
>> more 'marked' than lV, it is true that lVi pragmatically implies
>> plurality. But this is not a grammatical number distinction, of
>> course, and it doesn't apply to distributives: lV does not pragmatically
>> imply singularity
>
>But it does. A distributed plurality is not a real plurality.

But not all "le" sumti are really distributable.  TYhe inside quantifier is
"su'o", which could be "1", and the referent could be a mass - you CAN use
"le" to describe a mass.  Only when you put the number in the inner
quantifier does it imply multiple sentences.  The corresponding member of
LAhE for distributive is a bit more arguable, of course.

If John is right and the outer quantifier of lei should be su'o, then lei
does not always represent the English plural.  For I ate an apple or I ate
apples, you oughta use "lei" since I suspect you did not eat the core.
For "I go to the stores", we may or may not want a distributive value,
especially given the Lojban equivalent "mi klama le zarci", because of the
unspecified "from" place.  But I THINK "mi klama le re zarci is still
better than mi klama lei re zarci for the English if you wiush to count the sotres, because you do want it claimed that youi actually went to both stores,
and the "lei" doesn't necessarily claim that (though pragmatically it might
imply it).

lojbab