From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 11 15:17:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 78242 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 22:16:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 22:16:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 22:16:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0QWn-0002uX-D0 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:16:25 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0QWF-0002sv-58; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:15:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0QVk-0002sg-26 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:15:20 -0700 Received: from h-66-134-26-207.nycmny83.covad.net ([66.134.26.207] helo=pi.meson.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0QVi-0002sZ-6Q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:15:19 -0700 Received: (qmail 22655 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 22:15:15 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (1000@192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 22:15:15 -0000 Message-ID: <44B422F2.1060309@kli.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:15:14 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20060711202019.94622.qmail@web56411.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <12d58c160607111343q524bd62avb0446ae25cf9fcb2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <12d58c160607111343q524bd62avb0446ae25cf9fcb2@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080908070502080609090203" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-archive-position: 12123 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Mark E. Shoulson" From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Reply-To: mark@kli.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=T8zJQUXhCDW9JrIJAP-yU0K8Zq9qUz4OzLjzTQQgj4umbMgoXQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26548 --------------080908070502080609090203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit komfo,amonan wrote: > On 7/11/06, *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. > > > It is not unusual for lines between 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 to be drawn -- > singular, dual, plural. This was normal in the Semitic languages and > in ancient, ancient Greek. Sure... Even Biblical Hebrew had already limited the use of the dual to a few cases, but dual is pervasive all through classical Sanskrit. Every noun has to be declined in its 7 cases in singular, dual, and plural; every verb has singular dual and plural forms in all persons... ~mark --------------080908070502080609090203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit komfo,amonan wrote:

On 7/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> 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.

It is not unusual for lines between 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 to be drawn -- singular, dual, plural. This was normal in the Semitic languages and in ancient, ancient Greek.

Sure... Even Biblical Hebrew had already limited the use of the dual to a few cases, but dual is pervasive all through classical Sanskrit. Every noun has to be declined in its 7 cases in singular, dual, and plural; every verb has singular dual and plural forms in all persons...

~mark
--------------080908070502080609090203--