[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> But what would a day on jboske be without me yelling at Jorge?
Your yells are always well received.
> > You are assuming that distributive is the default reading of plurals,
> > but I don't agree that this is the case. I think collective is a more
> > useful default reading, i.e. I don't assume distributivity unless
> > explicitly marked.
>
> Jorge, I should hope you're not now humpty-dumptying English as well as
> Lojban! :-) The interpretation in English is contextually determined,
> primarily by the verb, so I don't see why talk of a default in English
> is even meaningful.
I didn't mean to talk of a default in English. I said that some
properties are properties both of the group and of the members, and
that in those cases I think using the collective is usually better.
(It certainly makes the logic much simpler to handle.)
>(And what's *useful* in English? Natlangs don't
> work like that. I do know I find it difficult to credit emergent
> properties are more commonplace than non-emergent ones, though.)
Looking at that paragraph: one generic plural, two emergents,
no distributive. Perhaps the sample is not large enough to be
significant though. :)
> In Lojban, of course, the distributivity of {(za'u) lo} is definitional
> to {lo}, and non-negotiable. Since {lo} is distributive, and the
> English plural is *frequently* distributive, the tendency to use {loi}
> as a generic plural (which is there) does indeed need to be combatted.
> The minute people say {loi X cu nelci}, say, there's a better than even
> chance they're doing something wrong...
I see more errors in Lojban the other way, people using
distributive plurals which if taken at face value give absurd
claims.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com