Pluralses and rereduplication

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by eldin raigmore » 21 Aug 2014 05:56

What languages allow one to pluralize a plural noun? And what kinds of semantics are thus expressed?

Some languages have a "dupleme", if that's the word, that is, partial or full reduplication counts as an -eme of some sort (probably a morpheme, but maybe a phonish-eme.)

Some of them allow a "dupleme" to be applied to a word that has already had one applied to it (that is, is the result of having applied reduplication (partial or full) to some wordbase).

When that happens, does something get tripled, or quadrupled? For some languages, the re-reduplicated word or part-word shows up three times; for others, it shows up four times.

What seems to be the best way to predict which of those a language will do?

And what sort of semantics does double-reduplication or re-reduplication mean, usually?

Incidentally, does anyone besides me think "reduplication" is redundant, or overkill, to describe the phenomena it usually denotes?
It seems to me that what actually happens is just "duplication"; "reduplication" should refer to duplicating something that has already been duplicated. IMHO FWIW.

For instance in bidding for Contract Bridge, one side can say "Double" if they don't think the other side can make the contract they just bid; and the other side can say "Redouble" if they think "well, yes we can, and you'll be sorry you doubted us".

Going straight to "redouble" (or "reduplicate") seems like skipping a step.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5773
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Ahzoh » 21 Aug 2014 06:02

My conlang have has a pattern whereby on puts in a root to make it a collection of that root meaning, and then it can be declined like a normal noun.

I have 'alkad (soldier) and 'alikdad (soldiers) [->] nu'lalid (army) and nu'lalidad (armies)
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

roninbodhisattva
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1778
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 20:03
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by roninbodhisattva » 21 Aug 2014 09:40


Some languages have a "dupleme", if that's the word, that is, partial or full reduplication counts as an -eme of some sort (probably a morpheme, but maybe a phonish-eme.)
What you call a dupleme here is generally called the reduplicant in the reduplication literature. I don't really get what you mean by an "-eme of some sort." It depends on your theory of reduplication.

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by clawgrip » 21 Aug 2014 12:45

I think by dupleme he just means the element that is reduplicated. In some languages, the entire root morpheme may not be reduplicated, so in that case you can't say it's just the root morpheme twice in a row. On the other hand, the reduplicated element has no consistent form, so it can't be recognized as a morpheme of its own. So a dupleme then is the product of reduplication that gets added to the root morpheme.

Also I also found reduplication to be a weird word. It's as though it has been reduplicated itself.

I don't know too much about reduplicating words that are already reduplicated, but it does happen in Japanese. There is a huge class of onomatopoeic/mimetic words that are all reduplicated: gochagocha, kurukuru , etc. A number of these can be further reduplicated for emphasis, but if they are, the base word is always appears a total of four times, never three, e.g. gochagocha gochagocha, kurukuru kurukuru. The base word in fact never appears alone, either.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7783
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Lambuzhao » 21 Aug 2014 14:43

In my conlang Rozwi, an adjectival form is made from verbs using reduplication. The redupicant is suffixed.

vēztæ "to live" [->] veztiviza "alive, living"

The collective (plural) suffix /iti/ takes the endings of the -I declension, which is basically the PL endings for most nouns (though it can take the endings of the Elder Declension as well). The stem vowel(s) of collectives may or may not go through pluralizing ablaut. This may be a case of "pluralses"
Spoiler:
Or maybe pleerelses [xP]
clawgrip wrote:Also I also found reduplication to be a weird word. It's as though it has been reduplicated itself.
Absolutely [+1]
reduplicant
Ugh! worse than reduplication. Sounds like one of the stupid names for the parts of a division sentence

reduplicant ÷ dividend = queasant

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by clawgrip » 21 Aug 2014 15:13

Sounds like something that needs to be hunted down by Harrison Ford.

User avatar
atman
greek
greek
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Dec 2012 17:04

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by atman » 21 Aug 2014 15:49

clawgrip wrote:Sounds like something that needs to be hunted down by Harrison Ford.
Oh yes. You mean something like Indiana Jones and the Kurganite Reduplicants?

Featuring reduplicated nominals, reduplicated perfects, reduplicated aorists, reduplicated presents (thematic and athematic).

Not going to be a box office success, dedwóyh₂e (I'm afraid).
Երկնէր երկին, երկնէր երկիր, երկնէր և ծովն ծիրանի.

User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1969
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 01:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Ear of the Sphinx » 21 Aug 2014 17:31

roninbodhisattva wrote:

Some languages have a "dupleme", if that's the word, that is, partial or full reduplication counts as an -eme of some sort (probably a morpheme, but maybe a phonish-eme.)
What you call a dupleme here is generally called the reduplicant in the reduplication literature. I don't really get what you mean by an "-eme of some sort." It depends on your theory of reduplication.
I've heard it called a ‹duplifix›.
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.

roninbodhisattva
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1778
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 20:03
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by roninbodhisattva » 21 Aug 2014 17:35

clawgrip wrote:I think by dupleme he just means the element that is reduplicated. In some languages, the entire root morpheme may not be reduplicated, so in that case you can't say it's just the root morpheme twice in a row. On the other hand, the reduplicated element has no consistent form, so it can't be recognized as a morpheme of its own. So a dupleme then is the product of reduplication that gets added to the root morpheme.
Right. This is exactly what reduplicant means. And some theories of reduplication ::do:: recognize those pieces as morphemes, usually derived by some abstract morpheme "RED" or some bullshit like that. In fact, that's what you're forced into if you have a theory of morphology that doesn't recognize realizational processes.
I've heard it called a ‹duplifix›.
Where?

User avatar
Ear of the Sphinx
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1969
Joined: 23 Aug 2010 01:41
Location: Nose of the Sun

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Ear of the Sphinx » 21 Aug 2014 20:34

Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by eldin raigmore » 23 Aug 2014 09:16

Ahzoh wrote:My conlang have has a pattern whereby on puts in a root to make it a collection of that root meaning, and then it can be declined like a normal noun.
I have 'alkad (soldier) and 'alikdad (soldiers) [->] nu'lalid (army) and nu'lalidad (armies)
Like a 3Cons natlang. I was, and probably still am, going to copy the Semitic gemination of the middle consonant as a binyan and/or part of some binyanim in (my conlang) Adpihi (I know Arabic uses a different word than the Hebrew "binyan", but at the moment I can't remember what it is).
I was going to vary it in two ways:
First, in Adpihi, the two copies of the root-consonant have to be separated by a vowel; it's more like reduplication than like gemination.
Second, the reduplicated consonant doesn't have to be the middle one. Depending on the semantics and on the binyan, it might be the first root consonant that gets "doubled", or it might be the last root-consonant, or it might indeed be the middle root-consonant.

[hr][/hr]
roninbodhisattva wrote:What you call a dupleme here is generally called the reduplicant in the reduplication literature.
Thanks. I didn't know that but I'm glad I do now.
I had never heard "reduplicant" before -- I'm pretty sure the word I forgot is "duplifix" -- but "reduplicant" makes sense.
(At least, using "reduplicant" to refer to the thing that gets reduplicated rather than the thing that reduplicates, makes as much sense as using "escapee" to refer to one who escapes rather than to something that gets escaped from.)
roninbodhisattva wrote:I don't really get what you mean by an "-eme of some sort." It depends on your theory of reduplication.
That makes a lot of sense, so I suppose it does depend on which theory. Since I'm not au courant with even one theory I'll let you be my expert, at least to the degree you want to be.

[hr][/hr]
clawgrip wrote:I think by dupleme he just means the element that is reduplicated. In some languages, the entire root morpheme may not be reduplicated, so in that case you can't say it's just the root morpheme twice in a row. On the other hand, the reduplicated element has no consistent form, so it can't be recognized as a morpheme of its own. So a dupleme then is the product of reduplication that gets added to the root morpheme.
Thanks for the clarification.

clawgrip wrote:Also I also found reduplication to be a weird word. It's as though it has been reduplicated itself.
And for the agreement.

clawgrip wrote:I don't know too much about reduplicating words that are already reduplicated, but it does happen in Japanese. There is a huge class of onomatopoeic/mimetic words that are all reduplicated: gochagocha, kurukuru , etc. A number of these can be further reduplicated for emphasis, but if they are, the base word is always appears a total of four times, never three, e.g. gochagocha gochagocha, kurukuru kurukuru. The base word in fact never appears alone, either.
And for the example.

There are languages in which the base word appears a total of three times whenever it's re-reduplicated. Unlike you I can't remember any examples.

[hr][/hr]
Lambuzhao wrote:In my conlang Rozwi, an adjectival form is made from verbs using reduplication. The redupicant is suffixed.
vēztæ "to live" [->] veztiviza "alive, living"
The collective (plural) suffix /iti/ takes the endings of the -I declension, which is basically the PL endings for most nouns (though it can take the endings of the Elder Declension as well). The stem vowel(s) of collectives may or may not go through pluralizing ablaut. This may be a case of "pluralses"
[
Thanks for both examples.

[hr][/hr]
Ear of the Sphinx wrote:I've heard it called a ‹duplifix›.
Having read your post I'm now pretty sure that "duplifix" is the word I had forgotten and was trying to remember when I came up with "dupleme".
Forget "dupleme"; go with "reduplicant" and/or "duplifix".
(Or if you really prefer "dupleme", at least one person will understand; but I don't intend to use it myself.)

Ear of the Sphinx wrote:In my ears. It is googlable as well.
On a Bing search, "reduplicant" and "duplifix" both show up, sometimes in the same article.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 24 Aug 2014 03:15, edited 1 time in total.

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by clawgrip » 23 Aug 2014 14:04

Somewhat unrelated, but I've read that Singapore English differentiates single reduplication from double, the former indicating a less sustained or casual action, and the latter indicating the action happening for a long time. So "walk walk" can mean take a walk, go for a stroll, and "walk walk walk" can mean keep walking for a long time.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by eldin raigmore » 23 Aug 2014 22:55

clawgrip wrote:Somewhat unrelated, but I've read that Singapore English differentiates single reduplication from double, the former indicating a less sustained or casual action, and the latter indicating the action happening for a long time. So "walk walk" can mean take a walk, go for a stroll, and "walk walk walk" can mean keep walking for a long time.
Great example! Thanks.
And I think that is indeed relevant.
Your Japanese example you gave earlier would have double-reduplication always resulting in four of whatever word or morpheme or syllable; in your Singapore English example, by contrast, rereduplication always results in three of whatever word.
(Or morpheme? I get the impression it has to be a verb? and has to be a full word? and only one word? -- is that right?)


[hr][/hr]


In one of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels, while Thursday is hiding in the Bookworld she also has a job there, and so attends a town-meeting to come up with guidelines for limiting the occurrence of "had had" and "that that" in English literature. Someone points out that a certain work had had "had had"s quite frequently before being edited, but, indicating an example, that that "that that" was the only one in that book.


[hr][/hr]

atman wrote:Indiana Jones and the Kurganite Reduplicants?
I just Googled that movie and your post popped up as the first hit.


[hr][/hr]


Who among us has read this PDF? Nonlocal Trigger-Target Relations, by Rachel Walker, of USC?

And is anyone else unsurprised that Kwakwala would come up in an article about reduplication?
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 24 Aug 2014 03:13, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Lao Kou » 24 Aug 2014 08:31

eldin raigmore wrote:Incidentally, does anyone besides me think "reduplication" is redundant, or overkill, to describe the phenomena it usually denotes?
iterate → reiterate. Good luck unringing that bell. [;)]

Pete and Repeat were walking down the street... [xP]
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2387
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by clawgrip » 26 Aug 2014 02:22

eldin raigmore wrote:I get the impression it has to be a verb?
Nouns can be reduplicated to show affection or intimacy. Examples from the book I got this from:

a. Where is your boy-boy [= boyfriend/son]?
b. We buddy-buddy [= close male friends]. You don't play me out, OK?
c. Say, who told you my mummy-mummy is a graduate? She study more than you, she knows better than you.

Can also be used with the same meaning with proper nouns:
a. I'm looking for Ry-Ry [= Henry]
b. Have you seen Yeoh-Yeoh [= Choon Yeoh]
c. Jeff-Jeff, come and see this [= Jeffrey]
d. I'm going with Qun-Qun [= Meiqun]

Adjectives can also be reduplicated to indicate intensification:

a. Don't always eat sweet-sweet [= very sweet] things.
b. Why the vege got bitter-bitter [= very bitter] taste?
c. I like hot-hot [=very hot] curries.
d. Why I never see you wear those short-short [=very short] skirts one ah?

Comparatives can also be reduplicated, but not superlatives (since superlatives cannot be intensified):

a. That one! The greener-greener one.
b. Make it smaller-smaller.

Adverbs don't reduplicate.
and has to be a full word?
Notice the proper nouns are all shortened to monosyllables. The book says that names have to be shortened to monosyllables in order to be reduplicated, but that this is a restriction that applies only to names, not other words.
and only one word? -- is that right?)
This seems to be the case, as near as I can tell.

As far as the verbs go, now that I am looking at the book I can explain the verbs more clearly.

A single copy of the verb shows attenuation, i.e. more casual or less sustained:

a. Don't always stay in the house. Go outside walk-walk [=stroll].
b. Don't have to cut all [of the cake]. Cut-cut [= make a small cut] a bit can already.
c. Let her be. She cry-cry [= cry a little bit] a while then she'll be alright.
d. Ya, I was sick but really, nothing serious. Cough-cough [=minor coughing] a bit then no more already.

Two copies indicates continuity, i.e. continuous or ongoing:

a. I walk-walk-walk [=was walking] then I fall down.
b. Take bus no good, always stop-stop-stop [=keeps on stopping]
c. Don't like that stare-stare-stare [=keep on staring] at people.
d. They down there choose-choose-choose [=in the act of choosing] so long already.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7783
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Lambuzhao » 26 Aug 2014 06:17

Partial reduplication (end-duplifix) was a way to make affectionate or diminutive words in English, too.

chubbsy-ubbsy (Cf. The Little Rascals Teacher's Pet)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKMCSYWsjBQ

cutie patootie

Sweet Pete/ Sweetie Peetie / Sweet Pea

Or in a dissimissive/pejorative way, such as

Mary, Mary quite contrary

Joe schmoe

Prinsessa
runic
runic
Posts: 3141
Joined: 07 Nov 2011 14:42

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by Prinsessa » 23 Dec 2014 23:03

Lao Kou wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:Incidentally, does anyone besides me think "reduplication" is redundant, or overkill, to describe the phenomena it usually denotes?
iterate → reiterate. Good luck unringing that bell. [;)]

Pete and Repeat were walking down the street... [xP]
Don't you mean walkwalking?

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by eldin raigmore » 24 Dec 2014 08:04

Skógvur wrote:
Lao Kou wrote:Pete and Repeat were walking down the street... [xP]
Don't you mean walkwalking?
Maybe he means "walksings". There are plural agents, after all.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4601
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by DesEsseintes » 25 Dec 2014 05:48

eldin wrote:Like a 3Cons natlang. I was, and probably still am, going to copy the Semitic gemination of the middle consonant as a binyan and/or part of some binyanim in (my conlang) Adpihi (I know Arabic uses a different word than the Hebrew "binyan", but at the moment I can't remember what it is).
This is a very late reply, but hopefully it helps anyway.

The Arabic word is wazn وَزن, pl. ʼawzaan أوزان.

Class IX Arabic verbs reduplicate the final consonant of the root. As an example H-m-r red yields ʼiHmarra to turn red. However, this is probably one of the least utilised verb patterns in Arabic, and it generally applies only to verbs of colour and physical deformity.

thetha
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1961
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 01:43

Re: Pluralses and rereduplication

Post by thetha » 25 Dec 2014 14:55

iHmarra also means 'to blush', btw.


I don't have my notes on hand right now but in some cases Quechua borrowed nouns from Spanish in their plural form, but borrowed the plural as a singular, and then applied the native plural marker to make the new plural. So some nouns appear in the form N-s-kuna [N-PL-PL].

Post Reply