Re: No more plural? No, more plural!

Hi, Henrik, Max, and Remi.  Thanks for writing.

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Theiling <theiling@A...> wrote:
> Hi!
> Remi Villatel <maxilys@T...> writes:
> >...
> > /The teachers gave one book to the students./
> > How many books were given? Well, it depends on what the two "the"
represent.
> >...
> Well, I'd probably understand this as a single book in total.
Anyway,
> I'd try to disambiguate this instead of saying it that way.  E.g.:
>   - The teachers gave one single book to the students.
>   - Each teacher gave a book to the students.
> And also:
>   - The teachers gave one single book to each student.
>   - Each teacher gave a book to each student.
I think if you read Remi's response to Max you'll see that this
disambiguation is handled in his conlang.

> > That's why I decided to split the plural and the dual of
Shaquelingua
> > in two. Now, Shaquelingua has a collective plural and a
distributive
> > plural --as well as collective and distributive dual.
> > Collective plural represents "all of the".
> > Distributive plural represents "each/every of the"
> Yeah, that's a bit neater! In Qthyn|gai, I have 'number stacking',
> e.g., in analogy to 'case stacking', number endings may be stacked.
I really, really liked your number-stacking.
Most of your endings express concepts discussed in Corbett's "Number".

> There are many atomic number endings, including
explicit 'collective',
> 'distributive'.
> Further, Qthyn|gai has number endings for 'expected amount',
> 'unexpected amount', 'known amount', 'unknown amount', 'explicitly
> unmentioned amount', 'regularly distributed', 'irregularly
> distributive', '1', '2', '3', 'not 1 (=general plural)', '0',
> 'absof*inglutely none', 'all', 'absof*inglutely all', 'many', 'quite
> many', 'very many', 'some', 'few', 'not so few'.  I think that's
about
> it... :-)))
> I had trouble coming up with Latin names for them.  I have normal
ones
> 'paucal', 'oligal', 'plural' but also 'latoligal' and 'tenuplural'
and
> 'superomnial' and 'subnullar'. :-)))
Corbett's "Number" probably, iirc, has names for most of these; are
you able to look?  I can't, anymore; I had to return the book.

> The list is here:
>     http://www.theiling.de/conlang/s7/s_05.html#06_01
Very nice site.
Are you aware of the idea of "nominal aspect" (aspect as applied to
nouns rather than to verbs)?
In particular, the distinction betweem "count nouns" and "mass nouns"
is sometimes spoken of as a distinction of "nominal aspect".
Maybe you had already heard that.
I'm not sure, but such a discussion might be in Corbett's "Number".

> > /The:COLL teachers gave one book to the:COLL students./
> Yeah, this is the same principle in Qthyn|gai.
> > Only one book is given in this case.
> > /The:DSTR teachers gave one book to the:COLL students./
> Same.  Both would be underspecified for the exact number.  The dual
> you mention would be a stacked number:
>    learn.cause.person.DUAL.COLL   = (group of) two teachers
>    learn.cause.person.DUAL.DISTR  = (each of) two teachers
Corbett's "Number", which has natlang examples of number-stacking,
doesn't seem to have "determinate" numbers (i.e. dual and trial)
involved in the stacking, at least not in the innermost number.

The problem might be, suppose you wanted to say
"Many-more-than-expected quite-small-groups of students."

The natural way, in Corbett's examples, would be something like
student.PAUCAL.GREATERPLURAL

If the students came in twos and threes, how would you know whether
to say "student.DUAL.GREATERPLURAL" or "student.TRIAL.GREATERPLURAL"?
The former implies the students are all in couples;
the latter implies they are all in threesomes.

Or, there are languages with a GREATER PAUCAL and a LESSER PAUCAL, in
which the LESSER PAUCAL is always used for a nuclear family, no
matter how large.  (The GREATER PAUCAL is used for 'hortatory' (that
is, first-person-imperative persuasive speech) and for extended
families, as well as for groups too big to be LESSER PAUCAL but too
small to be PLURAL.)

If people come to a gathering in couples and nuclear-families,
how do you say so?  "person.DUAL.PLURAL" implies "many couples",
"person.LESSERPAUCAL.PLURAL" implies "many nuclear families and other
small, small groups"; would you have to use both words to mean "many
people in couples and nuclear-family-groups"?

So, most of Corbett's examples, iirc, of number-stacking are along
the lines of

thing.PAU.PAU  a few lots of a few things
thing.PAU.PLU  many lots of a few things
thing.PLU.PAU  a few lots of many things

thing.PLU.PLU  many lots of many things

thing.PLU.GRPLU  way,way many lots of many things
thing.GRPLU.PLU  many hordes of things

(We might see the difference between "bee.GRPLU.PAU", "a few swarms
of bees", and "locust.GRPLU.GRPLU", "overwhelming hordes of locusts".)

However, there are some exceptions, mostly with things that naturally
occur in lots, with a set number of items to a lot.

glove.DU.PAU  a few pairs of gloves
sock.DU.PLU   many pairs of socks
(I'm stretching a point here -- /my/ socks don't /naturally/ occur in
"pairs"; they occur in units, mixed fractions ("one-and-three-quarter
socks", e.g.), or just plain fractions ("nine-tenths of a sock").
Only in the store are they in "pairs".)

> >...
> > One funny thing arising from my system is that the english
expression
> > "all of the" must sometimes be translated into a distributive
plural.
> > /The:DSTR shaquean couples usually have 2:COLL children./
> > = All the shaquean couples usually have 2 children.
>
> Hmm??  They never bear single children? :-))  Otherwise just after
the
> birth of one, there would be couples with only one child.
Missed communication due to different meanings of "have", I think.

> Ok, ok, you said 'usually'. :-)))
> >...
> > The usual questions: Wat d'ya think? ANADEW?
> >...
> Probably. :-)  At least in parts.  Although I don't know whether
there
> are languages that distinguish all four of dual collective, dual
> distributive, plural collective and plural distributive.
Me either, more's the pity.  I'll bet, if there is one, Corbett would
know;  if not, he would certainly be able to get someone to tell him.

Thanks for contributing, fellows.
(Work out which of those four words is collective and which are
distributive.)

Tom H.C. in MI