[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
[For reasons of time, I'm going to have to reply to messages individually.] xod: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > xod: > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > > > John: > > > > > And Rosta scripsit: > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Named Collective. The Collective is identified by name > > > > > > (cmene). Plus optional noi- and voi-statements (of cardinality > > > > > > and/or Superset). > > > > > > > > > > Is this like "The Smiths", the rock group whose members are not named > > > > > "Smith", or is this like "the Smiths", a family all of whom are named > > > > > "Smith"? I.e. I don't know what "identified by name" means. > > > > > > > > It is like the rock group. The plural morpheme in the example is a > > > > distractor. "Fleetwood Mac" would also be an example of (4), as would > > > > "John Cowan". > > > > > > > > The proposals treat individuals as singleton collectives. Things don't > > > > have to be done thus, but doing them that way leads to a more minimal > > > > inventory of primitives. > > > > > > The attribute that distinguishes collectives from pluralities is that a > > > collective has at least one interesting emergent property, which the > > > speaker is considering. The null property of belonging to a plurality is > > > unhelpful and should not be considered. (Flames piped to /dev/grice.) I > > > mean instead something like the ability to carry a piano. > > > > What you call a 'plurality' -- which is a misleading term, since I am > > talking about groups of ONE OR MORE individuals -- becomes what you call > > a 'collective' as soon as you predicate something of it. E.g. as soon > > as you say the plurality carries the piano, lo & behold it has acquired > > the emergent property (piano carrying) that renders it a 'collective'. > > (Using loi'a to denote collectives) if I said loi'a prenu cu cadzu, that > doesn't make sense, because walking is not an emergent property of > pluralities of humans. If I said loi'a prenu cu cladu, it means that the > crowd is noisy in the way that crowds are noisy, but not in the way that > individuals are noisy. su'o prenu cu cladu is a different statement. So I > can make a statement about a plurality which is a different statement if > applied to the same plurality marked as a collective. > > Different point: Pluralities use the gadri for individuals because each > thing is taken as an individual; not because it makes any sense to speak > of a plurality of one. A collective of one is equally meaningless. I second xorxes's reply, & will add that we have three notions: 'Group' = property applies to the group 'Distributive' = property applies to each member of the group 'Collective' = property applies to the group but not to each member of the group. It is right that Collective should be more marked (less basic), because it is logically less basic (because of the extra "not to each member of the group" element). Likewise, Distributive is less basic than Group, because Distributive adds the element "each member of". --And.