From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jul 11 14:05:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15949 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2006 21:02:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Jul 2006 21:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2006 21:02:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0PJk-0001Bl-Iu for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:52 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0PJB-0001Ax-S4; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:18 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0PIl-0001AW-6z for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:57:51 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.126]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0PIk-0001AP-1B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:57:51 -0700 Received: (qmail 69487 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2006 20:57:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20060711205748.69485.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.228.212] by web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:57:48 PDT Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT) 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: 12116 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: -0.7 (/) 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: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=ySnzIeITlyL-nHyaZCSBjCzqzX-Q_5YxWtM9cO_ppkDlvb0cuw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26541 Has anybody commented on how odd the traanslation of "the dogs" into {su'o re la gerku} is? Quite aside from the fact that, as given, it says "at least two things named Gerku" (I assume that the {la} is a typo for {le}), the external quantifier would almost never be used or called for. Nor do they do what is wanted: they say some more than one of some unspecified ..." From the point of view of English, Lojban descriptions -- as I have said before -- are basically plural and only incidentally singular. More exactly, a Lojban description says "some number of ..." where the number has to be non-zero but is otherwise unspecified. To specify singular is just the same as specifying 83 in terms of how it works in Lojban. That is, the singular/plural distinction is not obligatory, there is only specified vs. unspecified. And the appropriate specification is an internal quantifier. (The semantic analogs of all this are that, in plural quantification, a term may have any number of referents; in singular quantification, an individual is identified with its unit mass.) --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 7/11/06, Nathaniel Krause wrote: > > > > > > Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > When I first started > > learning Lojban, I found the translation of English plurals strange. > > {su'o re la gerku} seemed like an unintuitive and deficient > > translation of "the dogs" - is that really the only reason we have > > plurals? was the distinction between numerical 1 and all those numbers > > greater than 1 - was this distinction by itself important enough to > > have such a great effect on language? I didn't think much of it at the > > time, but looking back now I find that this corresponds to my > > position. It is my understanding that the large difference between 1 > > and >1 stems from how our minds treat single entities vs single > > entities composed of many entities. > > "su'o re la gerku" is about as good a translation of "the dogs" as anything > > you'd find in Chinese. That is, it's certainly possible to have a > > functioning language that ignores the difference between 1 and >1. > > > > 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. Actually, both Greek and Sanskrit (among many) do distinguish singular, dual, and plural. I seem to recall someone claiming that some language in the wilds of the Steppes had trial between dual and plural. Remember that in ancient Greek mathematics, one was not a number (arithmos). > > Interestingly, Chinese does have a plural, but it can only be used to > > describe people. > > > > Elaborate? > > > 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. > > 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.