Re: numbers in Tasratal: thoughts?

From: "Yoon Ha Lee" <yl112@...>
> I was going to create numbers as a third class of words that didn't have
> this three-way derivation thing going, when it occurred to me: why do more
> work than I have to?
>
> Hence, a new prefix: ka(l)-, for numbers:
> (You interpose [l] if the word-to-be-prefixed-to begins with a vowel.)
>
> This is derived from a perfectly boring, humdrum triad:
>
> ikal [ikal]: number, quantity (definite)
> ykal [i"kal]: quantity (indefinite), variable
> akal [akal]: order, linear
>
> Where does this lead?  Well, certain substantives can take on the ka(l)-
> prefix and become humdrum everyday numbers.  For example:
>
> ata [ata] has the meanings world/experience/total, but kalata [kalata]
> means infinity.
> ceia [tSeja] has the meanings self/past history/identity, but kaceia
> [katSeja] means 1.
Would {akaceia} mean "first", then, or is that misoveranalogizing?

> The choice of *what* triads take this prefix to become numbers will be
> conculturally determined, and is not otherwise predictable--so it's
> something you can just memorize (and which you can memorize separately
> from the actual word-meanings, though it's probably more difficult).
Is the ka[l]- prefix productive?  How would kalification of the "wrong" noun
lexically speaking act?  Say, {karoxe}.. would that be passed off by a native as
incomprehensible, as nonsensical, or would they try to make numerical sense of
it?

    *Muke!

Reply