Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>At the risk of invoking the ire of the gods, I will say that in my
>opinion Lojban does distinguish between singular and plural, albeit
>not exactly like English.
>
>That is the basic distinction between {le} and {lei}. (Also between
>--More--
>lo and loi, but it is easier to see it in the specific case.)
>
>        le ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno
>        Each of the three men carries the piano
>
>is really three statements in disguise, each of them describing an
>event for a single man.
>
>        lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno
>        The three men carry the piano
>
>is the statement in plural form. It describes a single event, of
>three men carrying the piano.
>
>If you simply say {lei nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, you could in principle
>be referring to a single man, but what for? If it was really a single
>man you would just say {le nanmu cu bevri le pipno}, so at least
>pragmatically {lei nanmu} is the plural form.


Consider the gods ired %^)

Both of your first two examples ARE plurals.  One of them CAN expand into
3 (a plural number) separate singuklar sentences.  But until you expand it,
it is just as plural as the second one.  The English "The three men
carry the piano" could mean EITHER of these two interpretations, with
pragmatics being the deciding factor.  "The three men carry the log across
the field more clearly indicates this ambiguity - it could either be "le"
or "lei", and indeed could be piro lei or pisu'o lei.

But the important thing about neutrality on this shows up in cases where
English doesn't make a singular/plural distinction - that is when English
uses masses.  Replace "nanmu" by "djacu" in the above exampoles and you
see where English breaks down (assume that the piano floats %^).  Lojban
does not require that you decide that the carrier be one water or three waters,
which is good because my English mind has to stretch to picture three
waters carrying a piano, especially with the "lei" version.

lojbab