<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Guillaume's proposal sounds great to me.<br>
<br>
For me "genifier" is misleading because it is (unfortunately) reminiscent of "genitive".<br>
<br>
It seems to me better to keep "classifier" as a cover term /comparative concept, because it is easily understood by every linguist and covers various systems sharing at least some properties, and then to make the appropriate distinctions (according to the various
types) with subcategorization.<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF732445" style="direction: ltr;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma" color="#000000"><b>De :</b> Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org] de la part de SEGERER Guillaume<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> jeudi 23 mars 2017 13:59<br>
<b>À :</b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hello all,<br>
This is a very inspiring conversation indeed ! May I jump in ?<br>
<br>
Martin wrote : <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
A <b>gender system</b> (= a system of gender markers) is a system of genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not restricted to numeral modifiers.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
First, it is obvious (as Martin himself admits) that this arbitrary limit of 20 is problematic. In Keeraak (Joola, Atlantic, Niger-Congo) my own description hesitates between 18 and 21 noun classes, depending on details that need not be mentioned here. Does
it mean that this languages might (in a typological perspective) be called a gender language or not ? The Atlantic languages have noun classes systems whose size vary between 3 (Nalu) to 31 (Baïnounk Gubëeher). Following my own quick survey of 44 languages,
30 have 19 classes or less and 14 have 20 classes or more. But all of these systems show many structural affinities.<br>
<br>
Second, I'd like to contribute a proposal : why not keep the term 'classifier', and add a one-letter prefix according to the following principle (which can of course be discussed) :<br>
A-classifiers would be for the Amerindian type<br>
B-classifiers would be for the Bantu type (that includes many other Niger-Congo branches of course)<br>
C-classifiers would be for the Chinese type<br>
etc...<br>
<br>
One could even make up a F-classifier type (French-like classifiers) to include systems with morphological markers that add a semantic value and take concord in one of the available paradigms (in French for example, suffixes like
<i>-ette</i> : diminutive, feminine concord ; <i>-eur</i> : agent nouns, masculine concord, etc.). this solution has the advantage to keep 'classifier' as a cover term without the objections mentioned earlier in this discussion.<br>
<br>
Guillaume<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Guillaume Segerer<br>
<i>LLACAN UMR 8135 - CNRS INALCO</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>