Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule

New from Cambridge University Press!


Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.

New from Brill!


Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin

Summary Details

Query:   Re: Q's 15.44 Hale reference
Author:  Donna Lardiere
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Morphology

Summary:   I asked whether anyone could identify the languages described in a Hale(1996, p. 729) commentary on Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono (1996) quoted below.

(1) ''Add the suffix -sh to animate nouns to form the dual and plural, add the same suffix to inanimates to form the singular and dual.''

Many thanks to Martha McGinnis, Douglas Dee and especially Thomas Hanke, who identified it as Jemez (Kiowa-Tanoan family). Hanke pointed me to the following source in Corbett's (2000) _Number_:

p. 159f, footnote 28: ''The related language Jemez has a comparable but interestingly different system of number marking of nouns (Kenneth Hale 1956-57 and p.c.), as the table shows. In Jemez the inverse marker marks the dual, together with either plural or singular (depending on the noun, in the main animates follow the first pattern and inanimates the second). ''

Douglas Dee also referred me to Mithun (1999, p. 81) _The Languages of Native North America_ for a description of Jemez.

(2) ''In cardinality DPs, with numerals from 3 through 10, use the feminine for a masculine noun, and vice versa, and use the plural form of the noun; with numerals from 11 through 19, use the singular accusative for the noun, and for the teen subpart of the numeral, use feminine for a feminine, and for the unit subpart of the numeral, use feminine for masculine and vice versa.''

Thanks to Stefan Dienst and again to Thomas Hanke who suggested Modern Standard Arabic and classical Arabic, respectively. Hanke referred me to the following source, from Hetzron (ed.): _The Semitic Languages_:
p. 154: ''while many numerals (3-10, 13-19, 23-29, etc.) exhibit a kind of reverse agreement (polarity), taking a feminine ending with masculine counted nouns [...] and vice versa [...]'' and
p.198, for classical Arabic: ''after the numbers from 11 to 19 in the accusative singular: [...] There is no distinction in gender in the tens, hundreds, and thousands.''

Thanks very much!
Donna Lardiere

LL Issue: 15.291
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2004
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page