From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 11 17:08:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 16888 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 23:55:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 23:55:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 23:55:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0S0L-0004LO-75 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:51:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0Rzn-0004Kt-IN; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:50:28 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RzJ-0004Jz-PM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:49:57 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RzG-0004Jm-LZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:49:57 -0700 Received: (qmail 17765 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2006 23:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20060711234952.17763.qmail@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:49:52 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:49:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20060711231315.51352.qmail@web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-archive-position: 12131 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Plurals, was: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=ecTcenMUc_dhtLEslNAWj_wOeO_skzkudvpC73AYIwjzw5cKoQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26557 For what is worth, there are said to be languages with very retricted number systems (not grammatical number). The most common is "1, 2, 3, many." there may be a few that go to 4 or 5 before getting a full number system of some sort (IE apparently stopped at 4 once and went on multiplicatively and additively: 8 is historically the dual form of four, 9 means starting the count anew, and so on). The constructed language toki pona has only 1, 2, many and drives its learners crazy trying say anything bigger than 5 (221 - additive) or so. -- Nathaniel Krause wrote: > > Maxim Katcharov wrote: > 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. > Grammatical numbers other than plural and singular are almost certainly less common than the "1 > vs >1" distinction. I think it's pretty clear that the human brain, when interpreting objects as > integers, has a strong recognition of "1 vs. not 1", a somewhat weaker recognition of "2 vs. > not 2", a somewhat weaker recognition of "3 vs. not 3", a still weaker recognition of "4 vs. not > 4", and basically no recognition of numbers larger than that (not that I'm an expert on this > sort of thing). This being the case, it makes sense that grammatical numbers specifying larger > integers would be progressively less common (Wikipedia says that there are apparently no > languages with a quaternary number). > > If I were making a conlang for fun, it would be interesting to include as many numbers as > possible > > > Interestingly, Chinese does have a plural, but it can only be used to > > describe people. > > > > Elaborate? > Sure; it's pretty simple. Standard Mandarin has a suffix, -men, which changes the simple form > into a plural form. However, this suffix is only applied to nouns or pronouns referring to > people. For instance, "wo" = I, "women" = we;"gongren" = worker(s), "gongrenmen" = workers. This > suffix is pretty optional because the simple form of any noun could refer to refer to one thing > or more than one. You could, by analogy, try applying the same suffix to things which aren't > people, for instance "goumen" = dogs, "fangzimen" = houses, but this is atypical and would be > regarded as incorrect, even if the listener could probably guess what you mean. > > -Nat Krause > > > --------------------------------- > Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 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.