Universal #255
Legacy number: 255
| Number | 255 |
| Original | If there exists a regular number distinction in a language, this distinction is necessarily present in the pronominal forms of the given language. |
| Standardized | IF there is a number opposition for any other word class (especially nouns), THEN there is the same number opposition for pronouns. |
| Formula | number (noun) ⇒ the same number (pronoun) |
| Keywords | number, noun, pronoun |
| Domain | inflection |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute |
| Basis | unspecified |
| Source | see Vardul’ 1969, referring to Uspensky |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Egyptian (Afro-Asiatic): Old Egyptian: Sg, Pl, and Du in pronouns and nouns; Middle Egyptian: Du forms of pronouns extremely rare, whereas nouns still show a tripartite number distinction; Late Egyptian: no Du forms of pronouns, Du forms of nouns rare; Coptic: further reduction of number distinctions (many nouns without morphological marking of number). (F. Kammerzell, p.c.); but see comments
Notes
1. A facultative opposition in number for nouns does not imply number for pronouns. Ex. in Javanese (W. Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian), number is facultatively expressed only for nouns, but not for pronouns. 2. Unclear: “facultative” – applicable only to some rather than to all (count) nouns? applicable to all nouns but not always obligatorily used? (e.g. English elephants/elephant with plural reference, “game plural”). 3. See discussion of dual, paucal, and other “minor numbers” which tend to be limited to nouns: Plank 1989, 1996, Corbett 1996.
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Unclear: "facultative" – applicable only to some rather than to all (count) nouns? applicable to all nouns but not always obligatorily used? (e.g. English elephants/elephant with plural reference, "game plural').
3. See discussion of dual, paucal, and other "minor numbers" which tend to be limited to nouns: Plank 1989, Plank 1996, Corbett 1996.