Extent vs. Number

[Greville G. Corbett]

In reply to Iris Berent's query (below):

There are various languages which might be thought of as using number
morphology to mark extent, as in the 'greater numbers' of languages
like Banyun, Fula and so on (Corbett 2000: 30-35), and in 'plurals of
abundance' (2000: 238-239). However, this is as part of a number
system, not 'rather than' number.

details in: Number, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Best
Greville G. Corbett

Surrey Morphology Group
University of Surrey
Guildford,Surrey,
Great Britain
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/

At 6:02 pm +0100 20/9/02, Dan Everett wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I am forwarding the following question from a psychologist colleague at
>Florida Atlantic University. Please copy your response to the list also
>to her at: iberent at science.fau.edu
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dan Everett
>
>Here is the question:
>************************
>
>Is there a language that marks nouns for extent, rather than for
>number? Because extent can be conceptually represented for either
>individuals or masses, a marking for extent would treat individuals
>and masses alike.  For instance, if the English plural were used to
>mark extent, one could say things like "some waters" and "some
>apples", and contrast them with "few water" and "few apple". Such
>marking for extent should further be expected to constrain syntactic
>agreement, in parallel to number agreement.
>
>Are such systems attested?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Iris Berent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20020920/84455f3a/attachment.htm>