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 m0rGLA4-00007DC; Sat, 10 Dec 94 08:20 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6648; Sat, 10 Dec 94 08:20:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6646; Sat, 10 Dec 1994 08:20:18 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1060; Sat, 10 Dec 1994 07:16:55 +0100 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 01:16:04 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: plural X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 993 Lines: 20 >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. Why do you say this? "le" descrioptions mean what the speakers wants them to mean, provided they are understood. "le nanmu" can refer to 3 men treated as a single mass, if the speaker wants to - to be explicit without allowing them to be separated, you could say le nanmu poi cimei. (or appropriate other place of cimei). And in any case, the defualt inner quantifier is "su'opa" which says nothing about singularity or plurality. The essence about having number be optional is NOT That you have to not be able to tell the difference, but that it is not mandatory to make a grammmatical distinction when number is unimportant to your expression/claim. lojbab