Goats' legs and counting

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@COGSCI.ED.AC.UK>]

>  Date:        Tue, 2 Feb 1993 17:03:35 -0500
>  From: John Cowan <cowan@COM.THYRSUS.SNARK>
>
>  la mark. clsn. cusku di'e
>
>  > John says the enumeration must be complete, that is, you can't say that a
>  > goat has two legs, even though it has, because to speak completely, you
>  > have to say it has four.
>
>  I say that if and only if you use an exact numeral.  Of course you can say
>  it has at-least-two legs with no problem.

I've never argued against this position, but I've never agreed with it.

If you say that the goat has two legs, what you are saying is that

>          lo'e kanba cu se tuple re da poi tuple ->
>          re da poi tuple zo'u lo'e kanba cu se tuple da

-- `there are two things, restricted to being legs, such that the
typical goat is belegged by them'.

Lo and behold, there are.  Say the two left legs.  Why is it wrong?
There are two of them, they are legs, and they beleg the typical goat.
Obviously the same could be said with respect to the two right legs,
or any other two legs of the goat.  In any case, if I have in mind two
legs by which the goat is belegged, it shouldn't matter whether it is
belegged by something else as well (by two more legs, as it were).

Ivan