[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la xod cusku di'e > Dr. Rosta's XS gives: {ci lo re plise} = "three pairs of apples" > > Is it really referring to apple-collectives? Three groups of two apples each. > I don't think that apples can > form collectives. But how else would one discuss three pairs? This is the > conflation of plurality and collective. Why can't apples form collectives? Any group of objects can be treated collectively, i.e. have properties that apply to the group rather than to each member separately. Even with your restricted definition of collective, three apples together can have a weight that none of the members have, for example. > I think we agree on our definitions, but mine are here: > http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/Towards%20a%20complete%20gadri%20picture Ok, in that case, XS only distinguishes between a group as a whole and the members of a group taken one at a time. It does not distinguish collectives from pluralities according to your definitions. But I don't think any flavour of Lojban distinguishes between your collectives and your pluralities. CLL Lojban has {le} for quantification over the members, and lei for collective/plurality, the group as a whole. (As well as for Stuff, and whatever else.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com