It seems that polarity [in gender/number systems] is never complete (i.e., polarity is never the sole configuration of gender/number markers under all circumstances in a given language).
Standardized
Polarity [in gender/number systems] is never complete (i.e., polarity is never the sole configuration of gender/number markers under all circumstances in a given language).
Mosel & Spriggs 2000 regard Teop (NW Solomonic, Oceanic, Austronesian) as a counterexample. This may not be true in the strictest sense but Teop is surely the closest to complete polarity one can get. Note that Teop genders are also counterexamples to ##518, 256, and 427.
1. The simplest instance of polarity would be a paradigm with two genders and two numbers but only two formally distinct markers, one for, say, masculine singular and feminine plural, the other one for masculine plural and feminine singular.2. “Polarity is an unusual occurrence, whose importance should not be over-rated.” (Corbett 1991: 195)
1. The simplest instance of polarity would be a paradigm with two genders and two numbers but only two formally distinct markers, one for, say, masculine singular and feminine plural, the other one for masculine plural and feminine singular.2. “Polarity is an unusual occurrence, whose importance should not be over-rated.” (Corbett 1991: 195)