[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:
No, I want to know how you explain why the singular is the only one
that is not subject to collectivity.
You need at least two things before you can have a distinction between
distributing or not distributing something among them. Isn't that obvious?
Why does adding a distributive
(and collective) marker to a singular make no sense?
Because there is no distinction to be made. Why does it not make
any difference to order a set of numbers from smallest to largest or
from largest to smallest when the set contains a single number?
Same thing with distributivity, if there is only one thing, distributive
and non-distributive give identical results.
mu'o mi'e xorxes