Re: THEORY: Number and animacy
| From: | Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 0:10 |
|---|
On Nov 7, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Does anyone know of a natlang which distinguishes
> number for animate, but not for inanimate nouns?
>
>
> /BP 8^)>
One view of Proto-Indo-European says that its neuter plural (along
with the feminine singular, which is very close formally) was
originally a kind of collective formed from its base by derivation,
rather than by inflection. I'm not sure how mainstream a view this
is or what evidence there is for it, but I've always thought it was a
cool idea. I'm assuming then, although I'm not sure, that the neuter
"singular" could have, according to this theory, been used to refer
to either a single or multiple entities.
Reply