Re: Zero-ness

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:38:25AM -0700, Jim Grossmann wrote:
> Well, "zero" is reminscent of "zero form," which refers, loosely speaking,
> to an implicit part of a word or utterance, like the missing subject in most
> English commands.
Hmm, I guess "zero" isn't appropriate then.

> I didn't read anyone mentioning "negative;"   we all know you'll need that
> term for whatever you're going to use for "no" and "not."
>
> "Abessive" refers to a case, and its possible to put both singular and
> plural nouns in such a case.   It makes sense for a couple with one child to
> vacation "without the child," and it makes sense for a couple with more than
> one child to vaction "without the children."
>
> But you're talking about a number that contrasts with singular and plural,
> so you need a different name.
Perhaps a coined word like "abessal" or "abessilar" (abessular?) may work?
(trying to modify "abessive" to look like "singular" or "plural".) It
doesn't sound quite right, though.

> I'd go with Johnathan Chang's "nil" or "null."
>
> Or you could use a bigger word:   "uninstantiated"?
>
> You could also coin or borrow a neologism.   "omissive?"
[snip]

I like "omissive"... but I feel that a stronger word is more appropriate,
because nouns in this third number are *emphatically* negated or absent.
For example, a noun like "blue" in this number would mean "no blue" or
"non-blue". A noun like "person" in this number would mean "no person" or
"zero persons". For example, when asked "how many persons live in that
house?", the answer might be "no-person". Or when asked "is your new dress
blue?", the answer might be "non-blue". There are also other usages, all
mainly referring to the absence or negation of a noun.

Perhaps "negative" is appropriate, since this is somewhat similar to
Greek's negated forms of "one" -- oudeis, oudenos, oudeni, ouden; which
attaches the negative prefix ou- to heis, "one". But as you pointed out,
"negative" could be confused with the words for "no" or "not"...


T