Difference between revisions of "Numerals"
Aaannestad (talk | contribs) |
Aaannestad (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| colspan="2" | | | colspan="2" | ''in-'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 2 | | 2 | ||
| colspan="2" | hano | | colspan="2" | ''hano'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 3 | | 3 | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | 512 | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | 4096 | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
{{interlinear|top=''nhoonho su'''hano'''kuty'' | {{interlinear|top=''nhoonho su'''hano'''kuty'' | ||
|no-CVVCV-* su-'''hano'''-ku-t | |no-CVVCV-* su-'''hano'''-ku-t | ||
| | |1-PL-TOP walk-'''two'''-there-PFV | ||
|'the two of us walked there'}} | |'the two of us walked there'}} | ||
With transitive verbs this can be ambiguous, as there is no means to distinguish which noun the numeral is meant to count. The default interpretation is that the object is what's being counted, but this is not guaranteed, and often the referent of the numeral is simply left to context. | With transitive verbs this can be ambiguous, as there is no means to distinguish which noun the numeral is meant to count. The default interpretation is that the object is what's being counted, but this is not guaranteed, and often the referent of the numeral is simply left to context. | ||
{{interlinear|top=''noorho su karu'''hano''' | {{interlinear|top=''noorho su karu'''hano'''ta'' | ||
|no-rV-CVVCV-* su karu-'''hano'''-t | |no-rV-CVVCV-* su karu-'''hano'''-t | ||
| | |1-OBL-PL-TOP 3 be.visible-'''two'''-PFV | ||
|'we saw the two of them' ''or'' 'the two of us saw them'}} | |'we saw the two of them' ''or'' 'the two of us saw them'}} | ||
When disambiguation is necessary, the solution is to use a relative clause with the numeral as the head verb. | When disambiguation is necessary, the primary solution is to use a relative clause with the numeral as the head verb. | ||
{{interlinear|top='''''noono hanollirhi''' su karuty'' | {{interlinear|top='''''noono hanollirhi''' su karuty'' | ||
|'''no-CVVCV hano-lli-rV-*''' su karu-t | |'''no-CVVCV hano-lli-rV-*''' su karu-t | ||
|''' | |'''1-PL two-REL.SUBJ-OBL-TOP''' 3 be.visible-PFV | ||
|'the two of us saw them' (lit. 'we who are two saw them')}} | |'the two of us saw them' (lit. 'we who are two saw them')}} | ||
{{interlinear|top=''noorho '''su hanolli''' karuty'' | {{interlinear|top=''noorho '''su hanolli''' karuty'' | ||
|no-rV-CVVCV-* '''su hano-lli''' karu-t | |no-rV-CVVCV-* '''su hano-lli''' karu-t | ||
| | |1-OBL-PL-TOP '''3 two-REL.SUBJ''' be.visible-PFV | ||
|'we saw the two of them' (lit. 'we saw them who are two')}} | |'we saw the two of them' (lit. 'we saw them who are two')}} | ||
''In-'' 'one' is also used for 'only', where the scope is clarified by focus marking; but in this role it appears in a different place in the verb template - after aspect morphology. | |||
{{interlinear|top=''no'''ta''' vat'''in'''e | |||
|no-'''t''' va-t-'''in'''-e | |||
|1sg-'''FOC''' do.it-PFV-'''only'''-INV | |||
|'only I did it' / 'I'm the one that did it' - cf ''nho vinny'' 'I did it alone'}} | |||
This focus strategy is available for other numerals as a repair strategy when an ambiguous sentence has been spoken and the speaker needs to disambiguate. The following exchange is representative: | |||
{{interlinear|top=''noorho su karuhanota'' | |||
|no-rV-CVVCV-* su karu-hano-t | |||
|1-OBL-PL-TOP 3 be-visible-two-PFV | |||
|'The two of us saw them' / 'we saw the two of them'}} | |||
{{interlinear|top=''hallity hanotewwe?'' | |||
|halli-t hano-t-e-wwe | |||
|who-FOC two-PFV-INV-Q | |||
|'who of them was the two?'}} | |||
{{interlinear|top=''a, noono'''ta''' hanote'' | |||
|a, no-CVVCV-'''t''' hano-t-e | |||
|a, 1-PL-FOC two-PFV-INV | |||
|'ah, it was us that were two'}} | |||
The focus marker strategy is only available as an after-the-fact repair; if you know you need to disambiguate before speaking the sentence, you use the relativisation strategy. | |||
Composite numerals behave instead in a way quite unique in Mirja, where they modify the preceding noun as 'adjectives' but do not form a phonological word with the noun they modify. | Composite numerals behave instead in a way quite unique in Mirja, where they modify the preceding noun as 'adjectives' but do not form a phonological word with the noun they modify. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:58, 8 June 2024
Numeral systems
Mirja has two parallel numeral systems. One is base-10, and is used for counting most things; the other is base-8, and is used primarily for measuring digital volume, though it is also sometimes used for other digital concepts. Up to 8 the two systems share numbers; at 9 they diverge and remain different beyond that point.
| base-10 | base-8 | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | in- | |
| 2 | hano | |
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 64 | ||
| 100 | ||
| 512 | ||
| 1000 | ||
| 4096 | ||
Grammatical behaviour
Individual numeral roots behave as verbs, often serialised inside a verb complex. The most basic way to count things is to simply put a numeral in the verb complex:
no-CVVCV-*
1-PL-TOP
su-hano-ku-t
walk-two-there-PFV
'the two of us walked there'
With transitive verbs this can be ambiguous, as there is no means to distinguish which noun the numeral is meant to count. The default interpretation is that the object is what's being counted, but this is not guaranteed, and often the referent of the numeral is simply left to context.
no-rV-CVVCV-*
1-OBL-PL-TOP
su
3
karu-hano-t
be.visible-two-PFV
'we saw the two of them' or 'the two of us saw them'
When disambiguation is necessary, the primary solution is to use a relative clause with the numeral as the head verb.
no-CVVCV
1-PL
hano-lli-rV-*
two-REL.SUBJ-OBL-TOP
su
3
karu-t
be.visible-PFV
'the two of us saw them' (lit. 'we who are two saw them')
no-rV-CVVCV-*
1-OBL-PL-TOP
su
3
hano-lli
two-REL.SUBJ
karu-t
be.visible-PFV
'we saw the two of them' (lit. 'we saw them who are two')
In- 'one' is also used for 'only', where the scope is clarified by focus marking; but in this role it appears in a different place in the verb template - after aspect morphology.
no-t
1sg-FOC
va-t-in-e
do.it-PFV-only-INV
'only I did it' / 'I'm the one that did it' - cf nho vinny 'I did it alone'
This focus strategy is available for other numerals as a repair strategy when an ambiguous sentence has been spoken and the speaker needs to disambiguate. The following exchange is representative:
no-rV-CVVCV-*
1-OBL-PL-TOP
su
3
karu-hano-t
be-visible-two-PFV
'The two of us saw them' / 'we saw the two of them'
halli-t
who-FOC
hano-t-e-wwe
two-PFV-INV-Q
'who of them was the two?'
a,
a,
no-CVVCV-t
1-PL-FOC
hano-t-e
two-PFV-INV
'ah, it was us that were two'
The focus marker strategy is only available as an after-the-fact repair; if you know you need to disambiguate before speaking the sentence, you use the relativisation strategy.
Composite numerals behave instead in a way quite unique in Mirja, where they modify the preceding noun as 'adjectives' but do not form a phonological word with the noun they modify.