Re: USAGE: Count and mass nouns

I verified: "peas", like French "(petits) pois", comes from Latin "pisum". In
ancient French, it has been "peis" too. So we can understand that people
thought it was a plural. We also do say "des pois" (plural). (In Britonnic: piz
bihan = "pea little", being a collective). But what about "des lentilles ?"
(lentils), coming from lens, lentis ? Similarity with peas ? In German, peas is
"Erbsen" (plural, too).

In Portuguese, the word for "noodles, macaroni" (French: des pâtes) is "massa",
with is singular, apparently a collective too. All this doesn't seem to obey to
real rules.

So I would suggest that a conlang should have facultative markers:
- one to express mass vs. count
- one to express collective vs. singulative
- one to express plural vs. singular (and if possible, also dual)

The implicit semes would be stored in the lexicon, and the markers would be used
in case one wants to use the word not in the implicit meaning, or distinguish
between two meanings equally possible (ambiguity). The absence of markers would
mean, either that one accepts the implicit semes, or that one wants to remain
ambiguous.

They could be several markers associated (like in: the plural of a singulative -
several single blades of grass).

Would that be a fair arrangement ?

Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...> skazal:
--- PHILIPPE CAQUANT a
scris:

> Yes, about peas, there seems to be little logic
> there. Maybe one reason is that, if you open
> the natural enveloppe of peas, you only see a
> few of them there, but if you refer to corn (un
> épi de maïs), there are immediately a lot of
> grains (hard to count) ???
>

Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

Reply