Re: Effect on number agreement when new numbers arise

Staving David Peterson :
>Pete wrote:
>
><< Khangaþyagon verbs are marked for number of the subject (singular/plural).
>The plural form is marked with a suffix in the last position, both for
>nouns and for verbs. Wagoragon, as I have previously mentioned, has
>developed a third number, the multiple, used when the quantity of things
>referred to is, at least in principle, known. This is formed by
>reduplication. It occurs to me that a new form of the verb should arise to
>agree with subjects in the multiple. Any ideas what form it should take?>>
>
>I don't think I understand the number.  So, when the number (greater than
>one, I presume?) is known (that is, there are lots of blades of grass outside,
>but I know that there are exactly three blades of grass inside, because I
>brought
>that many in), then you reduplicate the NP?  Why, just out of curiosity?
Known vs unknown quantities is a culturally important distinction for the
speakers. They're semi-nomadic herdsmen, and the distinction between
domestic animals that they've counted and wild ones that you haven't is
probably at the root of it.

>Anyway, if reduplication didn't exist as a normal pluralization process
>before, I'd predict one of two things:
>
>(1) The verb is marked as singular, because a plural marker hasn't been
>attached to the noun;
>
>(2) The verb is marked as plural, because there are more than one of
>whatever's being discussed.
I've considered both of those, and didn't find them satisfactory -


>I can't see a third type of marking arising unless you also, say, reduplicated
>the verb.
>
>-David

That may be the way forward. I was just wondering if there were any other
possibilities


>(B (Jhttp://dedalvs.free.fr/(B
By the way, where are all these strange characters coming from? I've had to
edit them out of all the previous lines manually.

Pete