Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/11/06, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > There are such languages. See:
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number> 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.