From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 11 12:17:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 11 Nov 2001 20:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 3419 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2001 20:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Nov 2001 20:17:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2001 20:17:04 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.189]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011111201701.ARY24621.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:17:01 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Language of Logic and Logical Language. Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 20:16:19 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > le nanmu poi claxu lo'e selnelrai skari cu cusku di'e > > >Would you mind elaborating on this? How does Lojban have an > >obligatory singular-plural distinction? > > The usual claim is that Lojban doesn't have obligatory > tense and number. This is true enough for tense. You have > but to look at any Lojban text and chances are that most > sentences won't be marked by tense. Tense is not obligatory > and it is very easy to avoid. But when it comes to number... > First, you cannot avoid having to choose an article/quantifier > for most sumti. This choice is extremely intertwined with > the singular-plural distinction. Then {le} and {lei} are the > only gadri for which the singular-plural distinction could be > avoided. But 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. > So my contention is that to put on the same level non-obligatory > tense in Lojban with non-obligatory number is misleading. I agree with you, as you know. Rather than saying that Lojban has an obligatory number distinction, it would be better to say (a) usage tends to fall into the singular-le, plural-lei habit, (b) for various reasons an awful lot of le-usage is incorrect, (c) optional tense works okay because it's not inherently mixed up with quantification, whereas optional number is messy because number can't be extricated from matters of quantification. --And.