David's classifier query (fwd)

[Doug Cooper]

(Fwd for "Laurent Sagart" <Laurent.Sagart at ehess.fr> )

Greetings to all,

LIU Shiru (1965:199; full reference below) claimed that David's scenario (a)
occurred in the history of Chinese, but for 'two': that is, a numeral
classifier, modern shuang1,  Old Chinese b/srong > Middle Chinese sraewng,
 signifying 'pair of', was reinterpreted as a true numeral meaning
'two' through omission of the numeral for 'one', in Nanbeichao times; later
on, shuang1 reverted to its original meaning of 'pair of'.

One reflects that this is probably why Siamese borrowed srong > sraewng
as soong, in the meaning  `two', rather than 'pair of', which is the usual
Chinese meaning of this word, even today.

A parallel example, in which b/tek > tsyek ?? (Modern Chinese zhi2),
originally a classifier for individual objects occurring in pairs, assumes
the aspect of a true numeral meaning `one', also through the omission of a
preceding ?? `one', may be found on p. 114 of Liu's book. This example is
isolated, however. Yet there is a certain question whether the numeral for
'one' in the Min dialects (Chaozhou tsek etc.), which is not etymologically
related to the normal Chinese word for 'one': OC b/?it > MC ?jit, modern
yi1, did not arise through David's scenario.

LIU Shiru (1965) Wei-Jin Nan-Beichao liangci yanjiu ([researches on
classifiers in the Wei-Jin and Nanbeichao periods]. In Chinese). Beijing:
Zhonghua.

Laurent

L. Sagart
CRLAO
54 Bd Raspail
75270 Paris cedex 06
France
Tel: +33 1 49 54 24 18
Fax: +33 1 49 54 26 71
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gil" <gil at eva.mpg.de>
To: "Sealang" <sealang-l at nectec.or.th>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:12 PM
Subject: classifier query


> Dear all,
>
> Is anybody familiar with an example of diachronic change in which a
> numeral classifier becomes reanalyzed as the numeral "one"?
>
> Comment:
>
> One could imagine two plausible scenarios for such a reanalysis to take
place.
>
> (a) In some numeral classifier languages, such as Cantonese and
> Vietnamese, a classifier may occur with a noun but without a numeral;
> in such cases, the resulting construction is generally interpreted as
> singular.  The singular semantics of such constructions could plausibly
> lead to the classifier being reinterpreted as the numeral "one".
>
> (b) In some numeral classifier languages, a collocation of numeral plus
> classifier has become reinterpreted as involving a simple numeral, the
> erstwhile classifier having been bleached of its classificatory
> function.  For example, the Malay numeral _satu_ "one" derives from
> _*@sa_ "one" plus _*batu_ "stone", the latter form functioning as a
> classifier.  One could thus imagine such a development being followed by
> the phonological weakening and eventual disappearance of the numeral
> "one", resulting in what was once a classifier becoming interpreted as a
> numeral "one".
>
> So I wonder: has this ever happened?  (Reason I'm asking is that I have
> a potential example of this, but I'd like to get a feel for whether this
> is an otherwise attested path of grammaticalization.)
>
> Looking forward to your reactions,
>
> David
> --
> David Gil
>
> Department of Linguistics
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Inselstrasse 22, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
>
> Telephone: 49-341-9952321
> Fax: 49-341-9952119
> Email: gil at eva.mpg.de
> Webpage:  http://monolith.eva.mpg.de/~gil/
>
L. Sagart
CRLAO
54 Bd Raspail
75270 Paris cedex 06
France
Tel: +33 1 49 54 24 18
Fax: +33 1 49 54 26 71