Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> And:
> > Since the collective/distributive distinction only makes sense for
> > categories with >1 member, and since we seem to feel that lVi is
> > more 'marked' than lV, it is true that lVi pragmatically implies
> > plurality. But this is not a grammatical number distinction, of
> > course, and it doesn't apply to distributives: lV does not pragmatically
> > imply singularity
>
> But it does. A distributed plurality is not a real plurality.

It is as far as language is concerned, typically. English doesn't
use mass nouns in such contexts: it uses either a plural noun or
a singular noun with a distributive pronoun (each person rose).
It is always clear that the reference is to members of a multiple
set.

> I think that most uses of plural in English correspond to {lei} in
> Lojban (or loi when appropriate). Sometimes English does use the plural
> marking for the distributive sense, but I think that is the minority of
> cases.

English is always unambiguous (or virtually always - I hedge without
thinking of exceptions) in distinguishing between reference to
single things vs members of multiple sets. And I very much doubt that
most uses of the plural ought to be translated lVi (or at least oughtn't
to be translated lV). You can test that by examining the plurals in
this paragraph, as I have just done.

---
And