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 m0rG1Br-00007DC; Fri, 9 Dec 94 11:00 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8798; Fri, 09 Dec 94 11:00:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8792; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 11:00:43 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4247; Fri, 9 Dec 1994 09:57:21 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:54:24 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: plural X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 873 Lines: 22 > >English forces us to distinguish between singular and plural. > > > >Lojban forces us to distinguish between individual and group. > > The point is that in Lojban it is optional to make such a distinction. > You CAN use the "individual" article on a "group", and you CAN use the > "group" word on an individual. How do you say "the men carried the piano" in Lojban WITHOUT making the individual/group distinction? > The fact that you see no reason to do so > is a product of your thinking, not of the inherent nature of the > language. 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. Jorge