From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 45934
Date: 2006-09-04
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr GasiorowskiWhether it is or not, it isn't *evidence* of anything except
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>> On 2006-08-30 01:53, tgpedersen wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>>>> What is your evidence for original plurality rather
>>>> than the duration and/or intensity that the usage now
>>>> conveys?
>>> Partly logical: the idea is that a reduplicated verb
>>> stem (and its nominal derivates) would designate several
>>> occurrences of the type of event the root of the
>>> reduplicated stem designates. Duration and intensity are
>>> logically, as far as I can tell, derivative concepts of
>>> plurality (via the concept of repetition).
>> Brian and I asked for _evidence_, not for a preconceived
>> opinion.
> I don't think of reasoning from semantics as preconceived
> opinion.
> 'Serial repetition' and 'simultaneous plurality' bothIf you want to play quasi-mathematical games, I'll point out
> denote a *set*, ie a collective of several occurrences,
> which may be sequential or simiultaneous among themselves.