Re: Re : Using numberless substantives

Tem Sun, 20 Jun 1999 12:40:32 -0700, Charles <catty@...>
skribis:

>> mamiki : town(s)
>> mimamiki : one town
>> etc.
>
>Don't forget that "cats have clawses", multiple sets of multiples.
Yes, I think Esperanto adresses this with "katoj havas ungaroj"

(well, in fact, I've read "claw" is "ungego" (big nail), but I don't
find it very logical)

>My own feeling is that IE grammaticalized number is best replaced
>by numeric adjectives/determiners such as "four" "none" "many";
>they are needed anyway, more general, and simplify grammar.
But then you would be using "one" almost all the time (if you don't
want to be vague)...

>This applies more to loglangs/auxlangs, of course.
>I feel the same about grammaticalized tense/aspect ...
In european natlangs it seems usual to use present tense as default,
and using other tenses when time localization of the action is wanted
to be expressed. I think this default usage of "present tense" (just
think how many types of "present tense" exist: aorist, historical,
customary, etc) is what makes so frequent the usage of present
continuous in English, when real present is to be expressed.

>And for gender, I'd want either none (just use "fem" and "mal/mach"
>and maybe "bis"? as optional modifiers)=20
I guess that's practical for most nouns (e.g. that of animals), but
not very practical for pairs like "father/mother", "brother/sister",
"son/daughter", etc.

or many more,
>an expanded gender/class system ala Bantu/Swahili or Ro.
Don't know it. What's it about?


Saludos,
Marcos