Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given your reply, it seems that we differ only in how we use the term
> 'referent':
>
> my "referent" = your "referents (taken together)"
> your "referent" = my "primitive subcollectivity of the referent"

I (somewhat) object to the "taken together" part, only because then
people run with it and assume that they must be doing something
together, besides being so "taken". They may be doing something
together, but then again they may not.

> A further reason why I prefer my version is that it's possible for it to be
> clear what the referent is without it being clear what (or how many, etc.)
> its primitive subcollectivities are.

Only after you have twisted your mind to accept that a collectivity is
one of its own subcollectivities, that a collectivity can have one
member, and so on. So, yes, once you are used to a way of talking it
is clear.

>Translate that into your terms, and
> it's rather weird: "It's possible for it to be clear what the referents
> (taken together) are, without it being clear what each referent is or how
> many referents there are".

"It's possible for it to be clear what the referent(s) are, without it
being clear what each of them is or how many of them there are".

The "(s)" is slightly clumsy, granted, but that's the price we pay for
talking in a language with obligatory grammatical number. I'm sure in
Chinese that part must sound better. :)

One advantage I see with plural-reference talk is that it needs less
jargon in the metalanguage.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.