[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 7/12/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/11/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Good point. I'd like to know how this is accounted for in the
pluralist system (or rather, the system that opposes mine).
How you make the distinction between distributive and non-distributive?
With {ro} for distributive and {lo'u} for non-distributive:
ro ko'a broda (distributive)
lo'u ko'a broda (non-distributive)
ko'a broda (unmarked for distributivity)
What And is saying is that when ko'a has a single referent, there is no
distinction between the distributive and the non-distributive cases. That
is indeed a special property of singular referents, you don't need to
distinguish distributive and non-distributive predication for them.
If not
because of how I describe things to work, then why is it that it is
strange and perhaps impossible to treat singulars collectively?
It is just as strange to treat them distributively. The distinction makes no
sense for singulars. We don't say "each cat is in the house" when
there is only one cat.
mu'o mi'e xorxes