[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