Re: Re : Using numberless substantives

>From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
>=20
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 20/06/99 19:13:49  , Marcos a =E9crit :
>=20
> > I'd like to know whether some one of you has dealt with a conlang
> >  where three endings for nouns were used:
> >  1 - one for the numberless noun
> >  2 - one for the singular noun
> >  3 - one for the plural noun
> there are natlangs having no specific plural or default singular tag an=
d
> making it clear that you speak of only one or else of a definite number=
 of
> items with classificators. many conlangs do so :
> miki : house(s)
> mumiki : house as a dwelling archetype
> mikimiki : houses
> mimiki : one house
> mamiki : town(s)
> mimamiki : one town
> etc.
Don't forget that "cats have clawses", multiple sets of multiples.

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.
The same roots can then be used to modify verbs or other things,
or simply left out when not needed.

This applies more to loglangs/auxlangs, of course.
I feel the same about grammaticalized tense/aspect ...

And for gender, I'd want either none (just use "fem" and "mal/mach"
and maybe "bis"? as optional modifiers) or many more,
an expanded gender/class system ala Bantu/Swahili or Ro.