Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rOC6s-00007NC; Sun, 1 Jan 95 00:17 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA11378 for ; Sun, 1 Jan 1995 00:17:13 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HLB54YTRM8000Z5V@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 31 Dec 1994 22:16:24 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3999; Sat, 31 Dec 1994 23:13:55 +0100 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 11:35:16 -0800 From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: plurality Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: "John E. Clifford" Message-id: <01HLB54YUTAA000Z5V@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1558 Lines: 25 I confess I do not understand the problem central to the Plural thread. Are we forced in Lojban to choose between distributive and collective descriptions? Yes, we are, since we have to start off with a descriptor and that is what we have -- as well as some for individuals of various sorts. So this contrast is an obligatory one in Lojban, as a grammatical category. To a certain extent, it must then be a semantic obligatory one as well, since, except perhaps for _le_ and _la_, the referents of the various expressions are determined as to type. (Well, individuals -- and maybe even groups of individuals -- can be treated as masses and a mass is an individual by some sort of definition, but they are basically different enough for this claim to be true at a commonsense level.) So, what follows that is worrisome? Nothing about the descriptors require us to think that masses (or sets or average brodas) have a separate reality from individuals, for all can be accounted for in terms of individuals of the lowest sort (very Quinine here we are) and, conversely, we can interpret most other expressions directly interms of masses for the benefit of the Lojbanic Trobrianders. The expressions may tempt us into metaphysical excursions -- and wouldn't that be a wonderful Whorfian effect -- but they don't force us to them. We do not even ever have to use the offending expressions, though conversation is often a lot easier with them, especially if we are going to avoid ambiguities of the "grouping" sort. So what is left? pc>|83