[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:35:21AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > Because stuff like > > > lo stedu be mi cu cmalymau lo'e plini > > > suggests I have multiple heads > > > > Perhaps lo in contrast to loi or lo'e suggests there are multiple > > heads, but I don't think that lo in contrast to le does. > > > > "There is something that is my head and is smaller than a planet." > > > > -- doesn't really suggest to me that there is more than one head > > But that's not how it should translate. It should translate as > "(At least) One of my heads is smaller than planets" > or somesuch Ignoring the lo'e plini bit, I see nothing wrong with my translation. Translate it into a logical formula and it is exactly the meaning of the Lojban. Your translation is okay too, but of course sounds odder given the propositional content. > > OTOH, using an e-gadri suggests that there is some reason for > > selecting a certain subset of lo'i broda, the most obvious reason > > being that the certain subset is distinct from lo'i broda > > e-gadri do not select subsets of lo'i They do, except the subsethood is presupposed rather than asserted. > > > Do you just want > > > things to depend on plurality? I think there's nothing wrong with > > > using "le" for this, as is intended. In cases where the number is > > > important we have the inner quantifiers, or we can explicitly state > > > the outer quantifier, and such things > > > > I don't want to have to rehash things I've said many times before > > In brief, plurals are logically more complex than singulars, > > since the collective/distributive applies only to them, and for > > the one and only member of a category the +/-specific distinction > > doesn't apply either. Quantification adds processing difficulty, > > so redundant quantification is undesirably unnecessary difficulty > > Marking singularity explicitly is undesirable because it paradoxically > > requires the additional complexity of an extra word to signal > > a lack of complexity, because it turns the singularity into a > > claim, and because it still forces a redundant choice among gadri > > I don't follow. So you *don't* want a normal plural/singular > distinction? If so, why are you using a different gadri for > everything you think has a singular referent? I want a distinction between singular and neutral (= "one or more"). Currently we only have the neutral. That means that when we refer to singulars we have to do all sorts of unnecessary stuff that is there only to accommodate the possibility that the reference is plural. --And.