Re: Zero-ness

> Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:46:01 -0400
> From:         The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>
> > From: Terrence Donnelly
> > At 10:30 AM 08/09/2000 +0200, B. Philip Jonsson wrote:
> > >At 00:38 10.8.2000 -0700, Jim Grossmann wrote:
> > >>But you're talking about a number that contrasts with singular
> > >>and plural, so you need a different name.
> > >>
> > >>I'd go with Johnathan Chang's "nil" or "null."
> > >
> > >"nullar" would fit nicely with "singular, dual..plural"
> >
> > How about "paucal" ?
>
> Nope! "Paucal" means "few" not "none".  I would go with a derivative of
> abessive since that is the closest to the concept you are implementing.
How is it closer than nihilar, for instance? (That's my preferred
pseudo-Latinate version --- nice rhythm to nihilar, singular, plural).

> (singular, dual, plural, abessal? abessular?)
Abessive (and similar case names) are weirdly derived in the first
place, tacking an ending onto the infinitive that usually goes on the
perfect participle:

    nomen n n3 -> nomino v 1 -> nominatus pptc m -> nominativus adj
    ad causa -> accuso v 1 -> accusatus pptc m -> accusativus adj
    gen- root -> gigno v 3 -> genitus pptc m -> genetivus adj
    (ab-fero v 3) -> ablatus pptc m -> ablativus adj

and so on. The Latin verb sum does not have a perfect participle, so
someone came up with the -essive thing --- but further derivation from
that should probably not be attempted. (I'd however expect abessival).

Mostly unrelated: Lewis & Short tell me that singuli < simul + ni. How
does that work? (Ray?)

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)