Re: Suppletive plurals (was: Greenberg)
|From:||Marcus Smith <smithma@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, September 14, 2000, 15:18|
John Cowan wrote:
>Lojban grammaticizes number (of course it has words for numbers, and can
>use them to do the work that grammatical number does in other languages)
>only in the personal pronouns, and then only by suppletion. Does
>suppletion count as an "allomorph of plural" when it is the only form?
I think Lojban falls within the spirit of this universal, since the singular
and plural forms are not identical.
>The personal pronouns (which are caseless, but glossed here as nominatives)are:
> mi I
> do you (sg. or pl.) but not other(s)
> mi'o we: you and I but not other(s)
> mi'a we: I and other(s) but not you
> ma'a we: I and you and other(s)
> do'o you and other(s)
>While these have obvious similarities, they are not analyzable intomorphemes.
do'o surprised me. Based on the pattern, I was expecting do'a since the other
two with "others" included end that way.
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
-- Kenneth Hale