Re: Re : Using numberless substantives

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 20/06/99 21:01:04  , Paul a =E9crit :

-------
or rather something like:

kuta
kuukuta
kutakuta
kukuta
kakuta
kukakuta
------

it is rather a reduplication like :

kuta
kukuta
kutakuta
kikuta
kakuta
kikakuta
-------
but "kuta" means "fatigue" so it wouldn't make sense anyway ;-)

you also have :
niti : day
neniti : night
noniti : night and day
niniti : a night or a day
--------
No value judgement implied, just curiosity.
-------
do you hint it's darn stupid, you loony euroxcentric ? ;-)

et Charles a =E9crit :

=20
>  Don't forget that "cats have clawses", multiple sets of multiples.
> =20
very true. actually i use "mimiki" to say "one house of a village".

>  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.
> =20
>  This applies more to loglangs/auxlangs, of course.
>  I feel the same about grammaticalized tense/aspect ...
> =20
well, i think you need sometime to attach some of them to meanings "hidden=20
inside" the words. for instance, if you want to derive "to learn" as the=20
temptative/inceptive of "to know", or reversely, then you must take into=20
account that "to start knowing" is different from "to learn", and "to have=20
learned" is different from "to know". of course, if you have plain different=20
words for each then these lines are needless.

>  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.
> =20
gender ? what for ? aren't compound female/male words enough ? goat female,=20
brethren male, etc.