Print

Print


li [Larry Sulky] mi tulis la

> > Larry says that the trouble with the obligatory plural is 
> that the response
> > to a statement such as "Hundoj estas en la kampo" will be 
> "How many?"
> > (kiom?)  But surely the response to "Hundo estas en la 
> kampo" in tweaked
> > Esperanto will also be "How many?"--assuming the 
> interlocutor cares enough
> > to ask in either case.  I just don't see any advantage to 
> doing it one way
> > rather than the other.
> 
> I don't think there is one. But there is a disadvantage in having a
> plural that is wide open -- any number bigger than 1. Why be required
> to give the information "more than one" without being required to give
> some sense of the magnitude?
> > But whether the default
> > form of a noun should mean "exactly one" or "at least one" 
> doesn't seem to
> > me to matter at all, as long as the speaker can say as much 
> or as little as
> > he or she wants to say.
> >
> Still agree. But when would a speaker want to say "more than one" yet
> not want to give some sense of the magnitude? (Except perhaps to
> mislead or obscure?)

I can see some use for a plural marker.  Have a single unit vs. a "set"
of something is a distinction that often (but not always) needs to be
made. 


> This discussion has been very useful to me, by the way. I'm thinking
> now that Lume should have singular as the default, with a small
> handful of pluralisers that represent magnitude, along SASXSEK's lines
> but without a generic plural. I'll talk it over with Rex offline.

Sasxsek's default is unspecified, so it's neither singular nor plural.
Singulars would be rendered with the adjective "jeni" (one) if needed.


------------------------------
dejnx nxtxr / Dana Nutter

LI SASXSEK LATIS.
http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek