Re: Probability of Article Replacement?

In a message dated 3/7/2003 10:26:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
fatula3@ATTGLOBAL.NET writes:


>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <A HREF="mailto:AmateurLinguist@...>Doug Dee</A>
>> To: <A HREF="mailto:CONLANG@...>CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU</A>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: Probability of Article Replacement?
>>
>>
>>
>> I was distinct annoyed to read in _Definiteness_ that "It has often been
>> pointed out that no language has noun phrases distinctively generic in
>> form."  That is, my article #2 seems to violate a linguistic universal
>> that generics are treated as either definite or indefinite.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> ---
>>
>> It's somewhat disturbing to see this.  A great many of my conlangs have a
>> "generic" category, though usually as a number opposing singular and
>> plural (and dual, etc.).  I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that...
>>
>> Actually, I find this happenning a lot.  Really puts the idea of
>> linguistic universals to shame, doesn't it?
>>
>> Joe Fatula
>>
>
Hmm.  If it's a number category, then it seems to me that it's the equivalent
of a "global plural," which _does_ occur in natural languages (according to
Greville Corbett in _Number_), so I think you're safe.

Doug