Message-Id: <m0rFgOZ-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 8 Dec 1994 05:45:32 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      plural
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1434
Lines: 33

>From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
>Subject:      Plural
>
>Ok, let me rephrase what I'm trying to say.
>
>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.  The fact that you see no reason to do so
is a product of your thinking, not of the inherent nature of the
language.

>These two distinctions are not equivalent, but there is a high
>correlation between them.  All I'm saying is that when translating
>something from English, you practically never need to use "su'ore" to
>get the same meaning you get from English.

It is not clear whether or not you indeed CAN always make the
distinction without using su'ore.  Rather more likely is that thus far,
with an English-speaking audience, and especially when translating from
English, we are falling back on English pragmatic reasoning that may be
inappropriate for Lojban.

I will note that "mi" and "do" and other KOhA are truly indeterminate
between singular and plural without explicit marking, and yet you rarely
have to mark them to force understanding.  This is a sign that, at least
in the current community, context usually provides enough of the right
kind of context clues to resolve the pragmatics.

lojbab