Plurals via reduplication in Japanese (was Re: Adopting a plural)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:49:22 -0600, Muke Tever <hotblack@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:12:55 -0400, Pascal A. Kramm <pkramm@...>
> wrote:
>> That doesn't count as a plural as it is practically used EXCLUSIVELY
>> used
>> for pronouns. You can't something call a plural if it can only be used
>> for
>> four words: watashi (I), anata (you), kare (he), kanojo (she).
>> That's it. Sometimes it might be added to the name of a person who is
>> the
>> leader of a group to denote that group, but it's impossible to use it
>> commonly for other words, so it really can't be called a "plural".
>
> It's called a plural because that's its function.  It's not a
> _paradigmatic_ plural as it is in English and other European languages,
> but that doesn't make it any less a plural marker.
>
> (And the original question was for a situation exactly like this, where
> there is no paradigmatic plural, but a plural marker is being imported,
> so the example fits just fine here.)
Aren't there also some small number of plural nouns in Japanese formed by
reduplication? They're fossils, but certainly existent, or so the
conversation went. I swear that not too long ago on this very list
somebody (but I fail to recall who) posted a short list of them. I think
it was actually to do with /h/ ~ /p/ ~ /b/ and the sound changes that made
them what they are. The examples were showing that the sound change only
happened in initial (or was it non-initial?) position. One example was
habipabi or huriburi or something. Damn, I wish I could remember it better.



Paul

/please don't tell me I dreamed it

Replies