Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:22:28 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: plural
In-reply-to: <199412110252.AA17514@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 11,
 94 02:50:26 am
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKUDYNHOJM000C9Z@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1232
Lines: 26

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.