[lojban] Named multiples

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

I've had this discussion with donri from time to time, but we're
both about equally no'e certu, so it's time to bring it up here.
(I especially look forward to hearing xorxes' view on this.)

So,

Sometimes when referring by name to a multiple of things, our
natural language intuition conflicts with our Lojbanic intuition.

For example, I drive an Opel, so in Lojban I could say

    .i mi klama fu lo me la .opel.

The {lo me}, which is supposed to be a no-op, comes from my
natural language intuition: I couldn't say that I "drive Opel," and
transferred to Lojban that means I can't say {klama fu la .opel.},
so {lo me la .opel.} is a lame attempt to express "_an_ Opel."

But that intuition is malglico (or malzvero): I also couldn't say
that I "drive car," but in Lojban I _can_ say {klama fu lo karce};
there's definitely no need to say {klama fu lo me lo karce}.

Lojban is ostensibly unmarked for number, but we Lojbanists are
not used to named multiples; we only ever talk about named
singles, like {la .lojban.} or {la .xorxes.}.

Because of this de facto convention, we assume that {la .opel.}
refers to a company or a *type* of car (singles), rather than to the
cars (a multiple).  So in practice {la} is not number-agnostic.

But there's no ban on named multiples, so {klama fu la .opel.}
should be perfectly okay, since it's obvious from context that in
this case {la .opel.} is a multiple: "the cars named Opel."

Discuss.

-- 
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.