In a message dated 11/10/2001 11:40:08 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
First, you cannot avoid having to choose an article/quantifier Not obviously in the offical line: we can -- and often do -- elect {su'o} or {ro} as the quantifier, and these do not comment on number at all (perhaps implicitly, but that is not significant -- and may be a carry-over from our native number sense). <Then {le} and {lei} are the only gadri for which the singular-plural distinction could be I don't see this. If anything, these are the most obiously singular v plural pairs (given my native number sense again), but are not so defined, being equally capable (though {lei} with a singular may seem odd in count-noun mode) of any number of referents B ut look at any Lojban text and try to find a bare I thinkt that is correct and, as I've said, a combination of count-noun mode (encouraged by the word lists but not inherent in the language) and our own sense that every sumti must be marked for number (interestingly apparently deeper than our tense sense; that's a surprise). So my contention is that to put on the same level non-obligatory Our abysmal usage and what the language requires are two different things. Clearly number is literally not required since most sumti do not have number marked with {pa} and {za'u} (or whatever). Nor are any of the gadri officially tied to numbers (or even to count-noun status). In fact getting an unequivocal singluar in Lojban is a great difficulty except where the nature of the beast requires it (sets, for example, and some of the other remote things like properties). |