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

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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


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.