Re: Zero-ness

At 7:55 pm +0200 13/8/00, BP Jonsson wrote:
>At 04:16 13.8.2000 -0500, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
[....]
>>of never having used a term for something like this before.   I don't like
>>"nihilar" since it seems to suggest the lack of an object rather than an
>>abstract number which represents lack, period; nor do I find any of the
>>others particularly attractive.  I guess "nullar" wins by default.
>
>To me, knowing Latin, it seems to be implicitly present already in the
>series {..singular,dual,trial..plural..(universal?)}.  Ray seems to agree.
Indeed I do.  (But you forgot 'paucal'   :)

The Latin formative suffix used in all these is -a:lis, which is
dissimilated to -a:ris if the base to which it is suffixed ends in /l/ -
thus: singul + a:lis --> singula:ris.

The base word for all the extant number words is adjectival, namely (neuter
nom.): singulum, duo, tria, pauca, plu:ra.

Thus it seems reasonable to do exactly the same for the 'zero number' if a
language has a form expressing it (and I'd be surprised if it had _never_
occured in some natlang somewhen, somewhere).  The Latin adjective
'nu:llus, nu:lla, nu:llum' has precisely the meaning required. And, since
the base ends in /l/, the derivative would be 'nu:lla:ris' which would give
English 'nullar'.

I don't understand what 'wins by default' means in this context.  As Philip
says, correctly IMO, the word is surely _already implicit_ in the existing
series of terms for the grammatical category of number.

Ray.


=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================