From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 11 16:30:32 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Rg7-000431-9y for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:30:07 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.126]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Rg5-00042q-4B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:30:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 36142 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2006 23:30:03 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MX+KDequF5jEVBnC0EySqn8iLL1N6F1EziMHnGckkJap5C1RDpfjm5TjtMrYfT6QY50K3MTBatQzeDuZfKJCM7hYIYidOrAvbOxaYJ3bJ/Od9XhlydDR8xQqSpRElF3hArhZ3WBHTFdztCzeHjLPmMhXOrRUExpHcwr3VCgcnG0= ; Message-ID: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:30:03 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12129 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 7/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > > Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > I don't suggest that a language would not function without plurals, > > > but that it's odd that the line was drawn between 1 and 2. Without an > > > explanation for this, one would think that there are languages out > > > there that have a pervasive plural that makes itself known between 2 > > > and 3, for example. > > > > There are such languages. See: > > for some examples. > > > > Are these 'dual/trial numbers' as pervasive as the "1 vs >1" > distinction in those languages? I doubt it. What I would like to see > is a natural language that has one verbiage for, say, 1 and 2 things, > and another for 3 or more. Or perhaps a language that has only few vs > many. Clearly, a language can be constructed with this requirement, > and it's a gamble to say that one shouldn't exist. My point is that > the tendency of many natural languages to draw the line at 1|2+ seems > to indicate something, and I suggest that it is that thought works in > the way that I describe. This isn't an argument for my position, and > my position isn't dependant on this. It is, as I said, just something > to consider. > Since this sounds a little like one pseudo-Whorfian hypothesis case, I give the usual counter: maybe people tend to make a strong divide between 1 and >1 because so many languages have a singular/plural distinction. Causation is hard to work out when the two phenomena are known only simultaneously. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.