From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 11 16:15:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 73916 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 23:15:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 23:15:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 23:15:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RQh-0003nY-Rw for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:14:12 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RQH-0003mt-H9; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RPq-0003me-L6 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:18 -0700 Received: from web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.111.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0RPo-0003mW-Jd for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:18 -0700 Received: (qmail 51354 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2006 23:13:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20060711231315.51352.qmail@web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Received: from [75.2.89.1] by web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:15 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:13:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-173527681-1152659595=:50741" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-archive-position: 12126 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nathanielkrause@yahoo.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Nathaniel Krause From: Nathaniel Krause Reply-To: nathanielkrause@yahoo.com Subject: [lojban] Plurals, was: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=4PL_YwDvigwOfXXnQ4Go8EF1rJiMDPW2oVpYahpl8nl4vSelAw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26551 --0-173527681-1152659595=:50741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. --0-173527681-1152659595=:50741 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> 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. --0-173527681-1152659595=:50741--