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 m0rFG6W-00006wC; Wed, 7 Dec 94 08:43 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6692; Wed, 07 Dec 94 08:44:09 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6691; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:44:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1959; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 07:40:53 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 01:43:30 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 722 Lines: 15 >What I think is malglico (but not carmi malglico) is not the decision >not to make number distinctions obligatory, but rather the failure to >design in a short & simple way to indicate plurality. But why plurality in paritcular. Why not singular/dual/su'oci? Or why not the Russian system which is singular/2-5/su'oxa but then after 20 cycles again on the last 1 or 2 digits so that 21 is singular? (Russian also does have a straight plural but it is not used when there is a specific number involved.) I think Chinese also has a different way of indicating number than the standard European model, but perhaps our Chinese readers can add to this. (Veijo speak up for Finnish, too, since it is also non I-E). lojbab