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 m0rFRdF-00006wC; Wed, 7 Dec 94 21:02 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7226; Wed, 07 Dec 94 21:02:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7224; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 21:02:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4824; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:59:23 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 14:02:41 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Plural X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 961 Lines: 22 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. 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. When in English you use the distributive plural, it is usually marked by something else than the final s, like an explicit quantifier, in which case the same thing is done in Lojban. When in English you only have the noun in the plural, and there is no other indication of plurality in the phrase, then it usually refers to the mass plural. This is just my observation from the little experience I've had in translating into Lojban. I don't think I ever felt the need to use "su'ore", so I don't think its relative clumsiness is a problem. Jorge