Re: QUESTION: types of plurals, few/many

Mike Karapcik wrote:
>        One thing that I am planning on is having three numbers for nouns
>and verb tenses: single, small plural, and large plural.
(snip explanation)
As you describe it, it's quite logical, no reason why it wouldn't
work.....though my initial reaction was, this could get cumbersome....:-)
>
>Now, two questions:
>        [1] Is this represented in any natural languages, or conlangs? I
>know many languages have single, dual, and plural (Arabic and Hawai'ian
that
>I've dabbled in, and it's in my Sanskrit text book; I've read it's a fairly
>common setup), some have a trial number, and a scant few even have a
quatral
>and quintal number.
I seem to recall that even in Greek and Sanskrit the dual forms are sort-of
poor relations, often lacking a complete paradigm, or merging some of the
cases.....(?)-- suggesting they were not used all that much or had become
unnecessary.  In the Oceanic languages I've seen bits of, the dual and trial
applies only to the personal pronouns, which are fairly clear/slightly
deformed compounds of Pron. plus "two, three".


>        [2] ... how practical would such a situation be?
I see no reason why a culture shouldn't consider these important
distinctions.
As for how it might develop over time, you seem to be on a very interesting
and right track here-----

>        I can already see one thing coming out of this:
>        It would be natural (in my opinion) for those using such a language
>to use the small plural to describe those with traits, lifestyles, beliefs,
>etc. that one dislikes, finds distasteful, or finds completely
unacceptable.


(though personally some of the implications of this make me squirm)
Seems a logical development from "a few" > insufficient, not enough >
wanting in some respect > not what We expect > not what We approve of.

Would your "small plural" become all-perjorative/all-the-time, or could it
continue to be used neutrally where necessary? Or pejorative only for
people, taboo items etc.?