Talk:Collective number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I sense that this page would benefit from the addition of more examples. Unfortunately I am unable to locate another definition.
Contents |
[edit] Expansion
I just expanded this page. Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources at the moment to really expound on the usage of derivational and lexical collectives, which constitute an important topic. More examples are always good, and it wouldn't hurt to see a better explanation of the mechanisms behind the formation of collective words. If I get a chance, I can write some stuff in about singularitives and collectives in Indo-European languages. I also would like to explain why lexical collectives develop, but most of what I know on that comes from (currently) unpublished reseach, and as such violates WP's policy.
J Riddy 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More examples?
Would any or all of the following appear to be suitable: pair, dozen, gross, mole, trio, score, pod, few, many, several?
Thanks.
- I don't think that is what is meant. Those are number names. This page might (note might) be about words such as 'brethren', which is distinct from singular (brother) and plural (brothers). Not sure though. -- Tarquin 19:52 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A collective, as I understand it, is a noun form that treats to a group of conceptually distinguishable items as a single blob, e.g. grass, hair, grain, etc. A singulative is a construction for denoting a single instance of what is usually referred to by a collective form, e.g. blade of grass, a hair, a grain. Can anyone out there with more solid linguistics credentials comfirm this or provide some additional examples? --Savage 18:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese plurals
The statement about Japanese having no plurals is not strictly true. A small number of words can form plurals through reduplication (hitobito, wareware, shimajima, tokidoki, sorezore, etc.). Pbattley 00:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
I am proposing a merger of plural, nullar, trial (grammatical number), paucal, collective number and singulative with grammatical number. Here are my reasons:
- Most of those other entries have very little in them. They could easily become sections, or even paragraphs in 'grammatical number';
- One exception is the plural entry, which does contain quite a bit, but a lot of what it has could just as well be in a general entry about 'grammatical number';
- I think that some of what is currently in the plural article might be used to improve the quality of the 'grammatical number' article;
A related page which is probably best left separate is the one on the dual number, which seems too large to merge with 'grammatical number'. FilipeS 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
