From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 11 17:02:28 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 79826 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2006 00:02:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Jul 2006 00:02:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2006 00:02:27 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0SB0-0004ek-L8 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:02:02 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0SAI-0004d9-Pk; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:01:19 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0S9r-0004co-1a for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:00:51 -0700 Received: from hu-out-0102.google.com ([72.14.214.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0S9p-0004cf-Dw for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:00:50 -0700 Received: by hu-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 34so3054964hud for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.220.15 with SMTP id s15mr72648nfg; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.5? ( [81.7.47.221]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id c10sm1417697nfb.2006.07.11.17.00.46; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44B43BAD.9090901@v21.me.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:00:45 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060711233003.36140.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-archive-position: 12132 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: And Rosta From: And Rosta Reply-To: and.rosta@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=fSEFgjGuR-sCKDiYAAvHPaCkZrZqSxM4CRobipVeX475axrsJw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26556 I confess I haven't been reading this thread, whose interminability reminds me of the olden days of Lojban list. So forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said. 1. I believe that there are implicational universals governing grammatical number distinctions, namely if there are only two categories they are singular and plural, if there is a trial then there is a dual, and so forth. For the unlazy, see Corbett's _Number_ (reference on the Wiki page). 2. It was my immersion in lojbanology that made me realize that there is something somehow fundamental to the singular--plural distinction, in that only plurals, and not singulars, are sensitive to a collective--distributive distinction. 3. It may be hard to prove that typological patterns across languages reflect human cognition rather than human cognition reflecting unexplained typological patterns. But the former (counterwhorfian) direction of causation is more explanatory. --And. John E Clifford, On 12/07/2006 00:30: > --- 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.