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

> 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