Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Language of Logic and Logical Language.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 15:48:40 EST

In a message dated 11/10/2001 11:40:08 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> First, you cannot avoid having to choose an article/quantifier
> for most sumti. This choice is extremely intertwined with
> the singular-plural distinction. 
Not obviously in the offical line: we can -- and often do -- elect {su'o} or 
{ro} as the quantifier, and these do not comment on number at all (perhaps 
implicitly, but that is not significant -- and may be a carry-over from our 
native number sense). 

<Then {le} and {lei} are the
> only gadri for which the singular-plural distinction could be
> avoided.

I don't see this. If anything, these are the most obiously singular v plural 
pairs (given my native number sense again), but are not so defined, being 
equally capable (though {lei} with a singular may seem odd in count-noun 
mode) of any number of referents

> ut look at any Lojban text and try to find a bare
> {le broda} that refers to more than one broda, or a {lei broda}
> that refers to a single broda. You won't find them easily.
I thinkt that is correct and, as I've said, a combination of count-noun mode 
(encouraged by the word lists but not inherent in the language) and our own 
sense that every sumti must be marked for number (interestingly apparently 
deeper than our tense sense; that's a surprise).

> So my contention is that to put on the same level non-obligatory
> 

Our abysmal usage and what the language requires are two different things. 
Clearly number is literally not required since most sumti do not have number 
marked with {pa} and {za'u} (or whatever). Nor are any of the gadri 
officially tied to numbers (or even to count-noun status). In fact getting 
an unequivocal singluar in Lojban is a great difficulty except where the 
nature of the beast requires it (sets, for example, and some of the other 
remote things like properties).