Re: Subject: Re: TEXT: pemci

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>What I think is malglico (but not carmi malglico) is not the decision
>not to make number distinctions obligatory, but rather the failure to
>design in a short & simple way to indicate plurality.

But why plurality in paritcular.  Why not  singular/dual/su'oci?
Or why not the Russian system which is singular/2-5/su'oxa but then after
20 cycles again on the last 1 or 2 digits so that 21 is singular?
(Russian also does have a straight plural but it is not used when there
is a specific number involved.)

I think Chinese also has a different way of indicating number than the
standard European model, but perhaps our Chinese readers can add to this.
(Veijo speak up for Finnish, too, since it is also non I-E).

lojbab