Re: singular and plural

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

>     I don't see why we would want to have both {le} and {lo} as singular
>     terms, and no simple quantifier expression. ...
>
> Because Lojban does *not* consider singular and plural to be primary.

Sorry, I wasn't using "singular" in its usual sense as opposite of "plural",
but in the way pc used it to distinguish from the "quantified" case.
What I meant is that it seems a waste to have {le} and {lo} for the
specific case, and no simple non-specific case.

> The primary distinction in Lojban is between `that which I designate
> in my head' and `that which is real according to the epistimology and
> context of the conversation'.

This distinction makes sense in the case where both {le} and {lo} are
specific. As long as {lo} has the {su'o} quantifier, it can't be specific.

In any case, I'm glad that I finally understand where so much emphasis
on veridicality comes from. If that was the original distinction between
{le} and {lo} it was killed as the defining distinction when {lo} was
given the {su'o} quantifier.

Jorge