# plural nouns in Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish and other languages



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

I know that there are two main types of languages:
1) languages with countable nouns: singular vs. plural morphology, no sortal classifiers
2) languages with collective nouns: no plural morphology, sortal classifiers

type 1) (Indo-European, Bantu etc.)
English: book vs. books => *two* book*s* 
Swahili: kitabu vs. vitabu => *vi*tabu *vi*wili (two books)

type 2) (East and Southeast Asian) 
Chinese: shū (book/books) - Èr běn shū (two CL book) 
Japanese: hon (book/books) - hon ni-satsu (book two CL)  

So, in those languages without plurals, nouns are not countable, they don't represent single items, so you need a classifier in order to count (like "two *heads* of cattle"). The vast majority of nouns are collective.  

Now, some languages have plural morphology but, at the same time, they use a singular noun when following a (plural) number. 
(Some have optional clasifiers but it is disputed if they are real sortal classifiers). 
For example: 
Turkish: öğretmen vs. öğretmen*ler* (teacher/teachers) => *iki* (tane) öğretmen (two (CL) teacher) 
Hungarian: rózsa vs. rózsá*k* (rose vs. roses) => *két* (szál/darab) rózsa (two (CL) rose)  

Finnish: talo vs. talo*t* (house vs. houses) => kolme talo*a* (three of house, partitive singular)

It seems that in Arabic after numbers from 3 to 10, nouns are in the genitive plural while with numbers greater than 10 nouns are in the accusative *singular* and with numbers greater than 100 are followed by the genitive *singular*.   

Now, in the Indo-European and Bantu languages, the plural marker means "more than one", so nouns are plural when following a "plural" number (a number greater than one).  

What, in languages like Turkish, Hungarian (and, maybe, Arabic) the plural form mean? 
Why after numbers greater than one, nouns are singular?   
Does the plural form indicate an indefinite or non-specific quantity?

Thank you


----------



## Rallino

Nino83 said:


> What, in languages like Turkish, Hungarian (and, maybe, Arabic) the plural form mean?



Can you elaborate this question? What does the plural form mean in Italian?



Nino83 said:


> Why after numbers greater than one, nouns are singular?


Because using plural nouns after a number greater than one is a redundancy.
A noun is pluralized to let the audience understand that there is more than one of that object.
When you use a plural noun after a number, say, "*Five books*", for us it feels like saying: "Guys, there are 5 books, but don't misunderstand: there is more than one." -- We already understood that there is a plurality when you said _five_.


Nino83 said:


> Does the plural form indicate an indefinite or non-specific quantity?


I'm not sure what you mean by this. The quantity of an item may be known to everyone, but you can still use plural if that's what you mean.


----------



## Encolpius

Nino83 said:


> What, in languages like Turkish, Hungarian (and, maybe, Arabic) the plural form mean?
> Why after numbers greater than one, nouns are singular?
> Does the plural form indicate an indefinite or non-specific quantity?
> Thank you



I have no idea why we use singular after greater numbers, but I keep asking why English say: *five fish, seven sheep or many deer*. And it is an IE language. Do you guys know about similar examples in other IE languages?


----------



## Nino83

Rallino said:


> Can you elaborate this question? What does the plural form mean in Italian?


Yes. I mean that in Italian (or Swahili) plural means "more than one", so if there is more than one cat, we say "due gatt-i" or "two cat-s".
Do you use the plural in Turkish with determiners like "many, a lot of, few, some..."?


Rallino said:


> Because using plural nouns after a number greater than one is a redundancy.


True, I didn't think about it. If I'm not wrong attributive adjectives don't agree in gender, case and number with the noun in Turkish and Hungarian, while in IE languages and Swahili (and Bantu, in general) they agree with the noun, so maybe these languages are a bit more redundant.


Encolpius said:


> English say: *five fish, seven sheep or many deer*. And it is an IE language.


Interesting.
I hope some native speaker could explain this. (Maybe these are undeclinable nouns?)


----------



## Rallino

Nino83 said:


> Yes. I mean that in Italian (or Swahili) plural means "more than one", so if there is more than one cat, we say "due gatt-i" or "two cat-s".
> Do you use the plural in Turkish with determiners like "many, a lot of, few, some..."?


We use singular after _many, a lot of_ and _few_. But we use plural after "some" and "certain" for some reason.


----------



## Stoggler

Encolpius said:


> I have no idea why we use singular after greater numbers, but I keep asking why English say: five fish, seven sheep or many deer. _And it is an IE language_. _Do you guys know about similar examples in other IE languages?_



Welsh.  Plurals following numbers are usually in singular.

e.g. car = (a) car
wyth car = eight cars
deg car = ten cars

You can however also convey plurals in Welsh using *number* + *o *+ *plural noun*, which is often used for very large numbers (e.g. tri mil o geir = three thousand of cars).

I'm not sure if there are similar constructions in other Celtic languages.



Encolpius said:


> but I keep asking why English say: *five fish, seven sheep or many deer*.



Someone better versed in the history of English than I will be able to confirm this, but I believe they are remnants of the old declension system in Old English when neuter nouns in plural (at least in nominative and accusative) were the same as the singular.  That certainly applies to sheep and deer, but fish was a masculine noun with plurals marked with -as in nominative and accusative - I can't explain fish in this example!

However, non-marking of plurals after numerals is (was?) relatively common in a number of regional varieties in England, especially traditional rural varieties.  The traditional dialect of my neck of the woods, Sussex, was a case in point, and I assume that other dialects in the area were similar.


----------



## Rallino

*Fishes* is an existing word though, refering to multiple schools of fish I guess. Can one equally say _sheeps_ with the same logic? Like, referring to multiple herds of sheep?


----------



## Stoggler

Fishes is used for different species of fish (plus in the odd phrase, like "swimming with the fishes").  You *can't* use sheeps in the same way - that word doesn't exist in English (at least in standard English).


----------



## Encolpius

Rallino said:


> We use singular after _many, a lot of_ and _few_. But we use plural after "some" and "certain" for some reason.



Interesting, we use singular.
I remember only 2 examples from school we learnt there is plural: Mindenszentek (All Saints) and Háromkirályok (Three Kings). Both names of feast. So, maybe the situation was different in Old Hungarian, but I checked a 12th century text and it is the same.


----------



## Encolpius

Stoggler said:


> ...You *can't* use sheeps in the same way - that word doesn't exist in English (at least in standard English).



Unless it is a family, right? The Sheeps arrived last night.


----------



## Stoggler

Encolpius said:


> Unless it is a family, right? The Sheeps arrived last night.



Ha!  Yes, indeed.  Can't say I've ever met any Sheeps!


----------



## Nino83

Rallino said:


> We use singular after _many, a lot of_ and _few_. But we use plural after "some" and "certain" for some reason.


I asked you this because I "suspect" that this difference could be due to the different nature of numbers and other similar words indicating a quantity of something.
In Latin "unus, una, unum", "duo, duae, duo", "tres, tres, tria" are clearly adjectives, like "many, few" and so on, so the "head" is the noun. The same in Swahili (numbers decline like adjectives, more or less).
While in Finnish it seems that the number is a noun, and the meaning is (seems to be) similar to "two units of something", with the counted noun in the partitive case.
The interesting thing is that in Turkish and Hungarian the noun is in the nominative case.


----------



## francisgranada

First of all, the plural marker in Hungarian behaves the same way as the accusative marker and other "case endings", in the sense that they appear only on the last element. For example "nice, red and fragrant roses" in accusative would be "szép, piros és szagos rózsá*k*a*t*""(not "***szépeket, pirosakat és szagosakat rózsákat"), where -*k* is the plural and -*t* is the accusative marker.

Thus, the _nominative singular form_ of the above example, i.e. "szép, piros és szagos rózsa", can be be considered (or historically viewed) rather like a _*case and number indifferent form*_: none of the elements bear neither a nominative nor a singular marker as they do not exist in Hungarian. To the contrary, see e.g. the Latin _-a_ in _rosa_, or _-us_ in _amicus _which are _nominative singular_ endings.

From this point of view, if we add any other qualifier/attribute to the nominative singular form, be it an other  adjective or quantifier (including _many, few, some ... _or any number), there is no need to add the plural ending to the _basic/number-indifferent_ form. For example "sok/kevés/három/néhány szép, piros és szagos rózsa" ("many/few/three/some nice, red and fragrant roses").

This feature is evident also e.g. in expressions like these:
"Mária szeme kék" - _literally "_Mary's eye is blue" (instead of _szeme*i *- eye*s*_).
"Féllábú ember" - _literally _"Half-legged man" (instead of _*egy*lábú - *one*-legged_).
 etc ...


----------



## Dib

Nino83 said:


> Now, some languages have plural morphology but, at the same time, they use a singular noun when following a (plural) number.
> (Some have optional clasifiers but it is disputed if they are real sortal classifiers).
> For example:
> Turkish: öğretmen vs. öğretmen*ler* (teacher/teachers) => *iki* (tane) öğretmen (two (CL) teacher)



Bengali (an IE language) also has similar behaviour (at least for the animate nouns), and I am also interested to find if there is a general model which can explain both this (Turkish/Hungarian/Bengali-style) and more typical IE-type noun pluralization.

Btw, I have noticed that Turkish does occasionally allow plural marker -lar after numerals. The other day, one of my acquaintances posted pictures of her friends on Facebook with the caption "Üç güzeller". I am quite sure, I have seen it also in place-names, but I can't recall any at the moment.


----------



## Rallino

Dib said:


> Btw, I have noticed that Turkish does occasionally allow plural marker -lar after numerals. The other day, one of my acquaintances posted pictures of her friends on Facebook with the caption "Üç güzeller". I am quite sure, I have seen it also in place-names, but I can't recall any at the moment.


Yes, I thought of that usage, but I didn't mention it.

When it's a name that is used to refer to a team, it is sometimes okay to use the plural. But there are too few examples for this.
Üç güzel*ler* = The three beauties.
Kırk harami*ler* = The forty thieves
Üç Silahşör*ler* = Three Musketeers
Pamuk Prenses ve Yedi Cüce*ler* = Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Beşev*ler* = The five houses (A district in Ankara)


----------



## francisgranada

Encolpius said:


> ... I remember only 2 examples from school we learnt there is plural: Mindenszentek (All Saints) and Háromkirályok (Three Kings) ...


According to some sources, in these cases the plural is the result of a direct translation from Latin.


----------



## Encolpius

Stoggler said:


> Ha!  Yes, indeed.  Can't say I've ever met any Sheeps!



Yes, there are only fewer than 120 person with the last name Sheep in the USA. But more people with that first name. And there is even 1 person called Sheep Sheep.


----------



## origumi

In biblical *Hebrew*, and to certain extent also modern Hebrew: for numbers above 10, singular form may, optionally, be used instead of plural. Certain nouns sound natural that way (e.g איש = person, sheqel = kind of coin, אחוז = percent), and also some foreign words (e.g. קילוגרם = kilogram, דולר = dollar) but for most nouns it sounds weird.

There's no case system in Hebrew, therefore comparing to Arabic in that respect (accusative for 11-99, genitive for larger numbers, or so) is impossible. Nevertheless, Hebrew uses "construct state" for number 2 (e.g. שני ילדים = two of children) and for definite nouns (e.g. עשרת הבתים = the ten of houses), which my be, speculatively, a remnant of archaic genitive.


----------



## ahvalj

I have checked several works on the prehistory of Uralic languages, and my impression is that there is currently no good explanation of the nature of this usage. The maximum that can be stated is that Uralic (like Altaic) uses the grammatical Singular for both singular proper and the _indivisible_ plural.

In Uralic the Singular is even used for the paired objects:

Finnish — _hänellä on kengät jalassa_ (liter. him–at is shoes foot–on) "he has shoes on his feet"
Hungarian — _kezet mos_ (liter. hand washes) "he washes his hands"

As a consequence, when a separate paired object is meant, the following workaround is used:

Finnish: _silmäpuoli_ (liter. eyehalf) "single-eyed"
Hungarian — _féllábú_ (liter. halflegged) "one-legged" [cp. in #13]


This may be originally connected with the lack of agreement between the numeral and the noun, but in Baltic-Finnic such an agreement (in number and case) has developed (supposedly under the Indo-European influence), yet we still find the Singular:

Finnish — _kaksi kirjaa_ "two books, delle due libri" (two + Partitive Singular)

but

_kahdelle kirjalle _"to two books" (two in Allative Singular + book in Allative Singular)
_kahdet kirjat_ "two books, i due libri" (two in Nominative Plural + book in Nominative Plural)
_kaksille kirjoille_ "to two sets of books" (two in Allative Plural + book in Allative Plural)


The explanation that the Indo-European numerals were originally adjectives vs. the Uralic numerals being nouns doesn't explain the Slavic usage, where numerals starting with five are etymologically nouns (Old Church Slavonic _pętь_ "five", cp. Sanskrit _panktiḥ_ "a set of five", from PIE *_penkʷtis_) and require the Genitive of the noun, but this is the _Plural_ Genitive (_pętь synovъ_ "five sons").


----------



## franknagy

ahvalj said:


> I have checked several works on the prehistory of Uralic languages, and my impression is that there is currently no good explanation of the nature of this usage. The maximum that can be stated is that Uralic (like Altaic) uses the grammatical Singular for both singular proper and the _indivisible_ plural.
> 
> In Uralic the Singular is even used for the paired objects:
> 
> Finnish — _hänellä on kengät jalassa_ (liter. him–at is shoes foot–on) "he has shoes on his feet"
> Hungarian — _kezet mos_ (liter. hand washes) "he washes his hands"
> 
> As a consequence, when a separate paired object is meant, the following workaround is used:
> 
> Finnish: _silmäpuoli_ (liter. eyehalf) "single-eyed"
> Hungarian — _féllábú_ (liter. halflegged) "one-legged" [cp. in #13]
> 
> 
> This may be originally connected with the lack of agreement between the numeral and the noun, but in Baltic-Finnic such an agreement (in number and case) has developed (supposedly under the Indo-European influence), yet we still find the Singular:
> 
> Finnish — _kaksi kirjaa_ "two books, delle due libri" (two + Partitive Singular)
> 
> but
> 
> _kahdelle kirjalle _"to two books" (two in Allative Singular + book in Allative Singular)
> _kahdet kirjat_ "two books, i due libri" (two in Nominative Plural + book in Nominative Plural)
> _kaksille kirjoille_ "to two sets of books" (two in Allative Plural + book in Allative Plural)
> 
> 
> The explanation that the Indo-European numerals were originally adjectives vs. the Uralic numerals being nouns doesn't explain the Slavic usage, where numerals starting with five are etymologically nouns (Old Church Slavonic _pętь_ "five", cp. Sanskrit _panktiḥ_ "a set of five", from PIE *_penkʷtis_) and require the Genitive of the noun, but this is the _Plural_ Genitive (_pętь synovъ_ "five sons").



1) The paired members and organs can work only together. (If you lose an arm then you cannot dress. If you have only one leg then you cannot walk. If you have only one eye or ear then you lose your stereo sight and hearing, respectively.
2) The degree of matching of adjectives and numerals spreads to zero to total in the different languages.
Hungarian way of thinking: here is the numeral which denotes that there are more than on objects.
Russian logic: let's use the plural and repeat the case an the gender on the adjective because the moun's endig may be nstressed.

[QUOTE encolpius]*five fish, seven sheep or many deer*.  [/QUOTE]
3) I have learned at first the fish and deer long ago. I have recently faced the deer, caribou among the animals and much more nouns unchanged in the plural.


----------



## ahvalj

franknagy said:


> The degree of matching of adjectives and numerals spreads to zero to total in the different languages.
> Hungarian way of thinking: here is the numeral which denotes that there are more than on objects.
> Russian logic: let's use the plural and repeat the case an the gender on the adjective because the moun's endig may be nstressed.


There are two different sources of this lack of agreement: in the case of Uralic and Altaic languages, the lack of the (redundant) agreement is original (in the sense that the evidence of the attested languages doesn't indicate the presence of the stronger agreement in the reconstructible past), while in the case of e. g. modern German this limited agreement is secondary (_ein kluger Mann, eines klugen Mannes, einem klugen Mann, einen klugen Mann_): the inherited Indo-European approach dictated the automatic agreement regardless of the vowel reduction etc. (_homō sapiēns, hominis sapientis, hominī sapientī, hominem sapientem_).


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> Finnish — _kaksi kirjaa_ "two books, delle due libri" (two + Partitive Singular)


This is present also in Latin, _mille homin*ium*, duo milia homin*ium*_ (one thousand of men, two thousand of men), but only with _mille/x milia_.
_Milia_ is a noun (_milium, milia_) and the partitive is mandatory here.
With _mille_ (numeral adjective) one can use both nominative and partitive.


ahvalj said:


> but
> _kahdelle kirjalle _"to two books" (two in Allative Singular + book in Allative Singular)
> _kahdet kirjat_ "two books, i due libri" (two in Nominative Plural + book in Nominative Plural)
> _kaksille kirjoille_ "to two sets of books" (two in Allative Plural + book in Allative Plural)


Yes, in this case they seems to act like adjectives.

Maybe the difference between nominative (in Turkish) and partitive (in Finnish) is due to the fact that after a number an "indefinite" noun follows.
In Turkish the nominative case is used also for indefinte direct objects, while in Finnish the partitive is used. Hungarian has a definite article, so (probably) the nominative or accusative case (without articles) is used after a number.

What is different is the fact that the singular is used when a noun follows a plural number. Maybe the reason doesn't lie in the nature of numbers.


----------



## ahvalj

But _mīlle hominium _is Genitive Plural vs. Partitive Singular in _tuhat ihmistä._


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> But _mille hominium _is Genitive Plural vs. Partitive Singular in _tuhat ihmistä._


Yes, this is the difference I can't get.
Why they use the singular after plural nouns.
Maybe the difference lies in how the singular and the plural are used in other contexts (without numbers), and not in the nature of the numbers in these languages.


----------



## francisgranada

.


ahvalj said:


> ... Hungarian — _kezet mos_ (liter. hand washes) "he washes his hands"


Yes, but we can still say _kezeit mossa_ "he washes his hands". On the other hand we can also say _tányért mos_ (liter. dish washes) "he washes the dishes"), _krumplit főz_ (liter. potato cooks) "he cooks potatoes", _az erdőben van fa_ (liter. in the forest is tree) "there are trees in the forest", etc.  In my opinion in these cases the singular is not used explicitly _instead _of plural  but rather the number/quantity is not relevant. In all the above examples the plural can be used as well, if necessary. That's why I have called it _number indifferent form _(#13), i.e. "neutral" from the point of view of plurality/singularity.

For example, when I say _Mária szeme kék_ (liter. Mary's eye is blue), I also may want to speak only e.g. of the left eye. I.e. the singular in this case doesn't explicitly express the plurality, though normally implicitly interpreted so in this case (as both the eyes used to be of the same color). I can say also _Mária szemei kékek _(liter. Mary's eyes are blues) in a certain context.

(this is not only my personal theory, though at the moment I am not able to give you any link)


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Thus, the _nominative singular form_ of the above example, i.e. "szép, piros és szagos rózsa", can be be considered (or historically viewed) rather like a _*case and number indifferent form*_: none of the elements bear neither a nominative nor a singular marker as they do not exist in Hungarian. To the contrary, see e.g. the Latin _-a_ in _rosa_, or _-us_ in _amicus _which are _nominative singular_ endings.





francisgranada said:


> On the other hand we can also say _tányért mos_ (liter. dish washes) "he washes the dishes"), _krumplit főz_ (liter. potato cooks) "he cooks potatoes", _az erdőben van fa_ (liter. in the forest is tree) "there are trees in the forest", etc. In my opinion in these cases the singular is not used explicitly _instead _of plural but rather the number/quantity is not relevant.


Thank you, Francis! 
So in noun phrases like _két rózsa_, _rózsa_ is not "singular" (as opposed to plural) but a "neutral" form (neither singular nor plural). In other words, it (the distinction between singular and plural) doesn't matter.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... So in noun phrases like _két rózsa_, _rózsa_ is not "singular" (as opposed to plural) but a "neutral" form (neither singular nor plural). In other words, it (the distinction between singular and plural) doesn't matter.


Yes, in my opinion. However terminologically (in grammar) we call the form  _rózsa _singular and _rózsák _plural.


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Yes, in my opinion. However terminologically (in grammar) we call the form _rózsa _singular and _rózsák _plural.


Thanks! 

I read on "Turkish: a comprehensive grammar" (page 151)


> A noun phrase that is unmarked for number, i.e. whose head does not carry the plural suffix and which does not have a numeral or other quantifying determiner among its modifiers, may be either singular or transnumeral (number-neutral) in meaning. If it has definite status it will have singular meaning, but *if it has generic or categorial status it will have transnumeral meaning.* These various referential statuses are discussed in detail in Chapter 22.
> (39) İlaç bana çok iyi geldi. => ‘The medicine did me a lot of good.’
> (40) İlaç hastaya göre seçilmelidir. => ‘The medicine/Medicines must be chosen according to the patient.’
> (41) Doktor bana ilaç yazmadı. =>  ‘The doctor didn’t prescribe me any medicine(s).’



So, in Turkish and Hungarian one can use just the singular and it can be interpreted as singular or plural (transnumeral or number-neutral).  

It seems these languages are in the middle between the Indo-European and the East and Southeast Asian languages.


----------



## Nino83

I read in this paper that "plurals in classifier languages are thus not felicitous to ask whether someone has a child, as shown in (1)–(2). Bare NPs, which are associated with the general number, are used in this context."

I do not know whether they have childr*en*. (English)
Saya tidak tahu sama ada mereka ada anak/*#anak-anak*. (Malay)
Watashi wa karera ni kodomo/*#kodomo-tati* ga iru ka shiranai. (Japanese)

So, it seems that in languages like Turkish and Hungarian, the basic form of nouns doesn't indicate only singular units of something but also generic and categorial status.


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... So, it seems that in languages like Turkish and Hungarian, the basic form of nouns doesn't indicate only singular units of something but also generic and categorial status.


Yes. According to some linguists, in a certain stage of the history of some language families, the basic form of nouns did not indicate any case and any number. If so, then the plural marker evolved in a later stage (also a separate/parallel singular marker could have evolved in some languages, at least in theory). The Turkish and Hungarian seem to conserve this stage to a certain degree.

It is not so difficult to imagine the absence of the formal plural of nouns, even in the modern Hungarian: it's enough to use some quantifier (like one, some, few, many ...) if necessary and we can practically avoid the usage of the plural marker. An example:

_Egy/Néhány/Sok szép lány sétál az utcán és néz engem._ (literally: _One/Some/Many_ nice girl walks on the street and watches me)

In this case not only the noun (_lány_- girl) and adjective (_szép _- nice) do not bear any marker, but consequently also the verbs (_sétál _- walks, _néz _- watches) appear in their basic form, i.e. without neither plural nor personal marker (in verbs, it works only in the 3rd person).

P.S. For curiosity, see e.g. the Italian _qualche ragazza mi sta guardando,_ which though formally singular, may refer both to _one _and _more _girls.


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> According to some linguists, in a certain stage of the history of some language families, the basic form of nouns did not indicate any case and any number.
> The Turkish and Hungarian seem to conserve this stage to a certain degree.


Now the use of "singular" (or better, number-neutral) nouns after numbers greater than one seems more logical.


----------



## franknagy

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, Francis!
> So in noun phrases like _két rózsa_, _rózsa_ is not "singular" (as opposed to plural) but a "neutral" form (neither singular nor plural). In other words, it (the distinction between singular and plural) doesn't matter.



*No, Nino. There is no neutral form in Hungarian. The word "rózsa" is in singular. It has plural "rózsák". The rules of agreement of are peculiar in Hungarian.*
If I want to define the *exact number* of roses is 3 then I say rose in singular: "Három rózsát vettem neked" = "I have bought you three roses". If I do not mention the exact number of roses then I use the plural: "Rózsákat vettem neked". 

The indefinite numerals behave in the same way.
"Kevés rózsa, sok rózsa, néhány rózsa" (few, many, some roses).
The numerals meaning "all" are normally followed by singular, except in some fixed expressions:
"NN összes költeményei"="NN's all poems", "Mindenszentek"= "All Saints", "Minden oroszok cárja"="Tzar of all Russians".
( If the noun in plural is the possession of another noun then the ending of the Hungarian plural is not k but i.)
We may say that Hungarian avoids the usage of plural. See the above examples of potato and apple, so on:
Indo-European languages use plural when somebody is buying fruits and vegetables. Hungarian uses singular: _Krumplit veszek, almát veszek, szőlőt veszek, uborkát veszek.
_
Similarly the trousers, sock, shoes, gloves are in singular.
Nadrág, zokni, cipő, kesztyű.
Single sock and single shoe are called "half pair ...": _fél pár zokni, fél pár cipő, fél pár kesztyű._
Half pair trousers do no exist.

On the other hand the influence of plural linking languages has resulted some fixed expressions:
"Háromkirályok"= "Three Kings/Magi". "Ötök"=" The Russian Five Compositors". Here the numeral got the plural -k.


----------



## Nino83

At the same time it seems that in Hungarian and Turkish bare nouns (without plural markers) can indicate indefinite categorial (unspecified quantity of somthing) and generic (an entire class of something) status.

He sells apple*s*. Vende mel*e*. 
He doesn't eat potatoe*s*. Non mangia patat*e*. 
There are tree*s* in the forest. Ci sono alber*i* nella foresta. 
Cat*s* and dog*s* don't get along. Can*i* e gatt*i* non vanno d'accordo. 

The difference is that for unspecified quantities some languages use plural nouns while others use singular nouns.
So, if there's a quantifier (numbers, indefinite adjectives), these languages (in order to avoid repetition) use the singular, which indicates unspecified quantities.
When a noun indicates an unspecified quantity of something, it has a "transnumeral" or "number-neutral" meaning.
Some languages use plural nouns for this purpose while others use singular nouns.


----------



## ahvalj

Could I ask the Hungarian and Turkish users to cite what their national academic grammars write about this matter?


----------



## Nino83

The book I cited was written by Aslı Göksel, professor in linguistics and Turkish grammar at Boğaziçi Üniversitesi. 
Anyway it would be interesting to know which Turkish and Hungarian terms are used.


----------



## franknagy

Ikrek, mellek, cipők: hogy működik a magyar többes szám?
See the articles about the plural here.
Miért egy, hogyha sok?
Nádasdy Ádám: Számháború


----------



## ahvalj

franknagy said:


> Ikrek, mellek, cipők: hogy működik a magyar többes szám?
> See the articles about the plural here.
> Miért egy, hogyha sok?
> Nádasdy Ádám: Számháború


Thank you. Could you make a short excerpt in English for those still not fluent in Hungarian?


----------



## iezik

Nino83 said:


> Cat*s* and dog*s* don't get along. Can*i* e gatt*i* non vanno d'accordo.
> The difference is that for unspecified quantities some languages use plural nouns while others use singular nouns.


The same language can use singular and plural for the same purpose, depending on situation. Here are some more statements about animals, from Wikipedia:

The male lion is easily recognised by its mane. (male lion, singular)
In the wild, males seldom live longer than 10 to 14 years. (males, plural)

Il leone è un mammifero carnivoro della famiglia dei felidi. (leone, singular)
Tipicamente, i leoni abitano la savana e le praterie. (leoni, plural)

English and Italian can use either singular or plural in such situations. In the quoted text, only plural is possible.


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> ... There is no neutral form in Hungarian. The word "rózsa" is in singular. It has plural "rózsá*k**"*...


I agree in the sense that there is no "special neutral form" in Hungarian (see my post #27).  





> ..."Három rózsát vettem neked" = "I have bought you three roses". If I do not mention the exact number of roses then I use the plural: "Rózsákat vettem neked".


Yes, but "Rózsá*k*at vettem neked" is simply _plural _(=I've bought _more than one_ rose). However, there is also a third possibility: "Rózsát vettem neked", where  "rózsát" is formally accusative _singular_, but_ de facto_ it does not express weather I have both only one rose or more; i.e. in this case the (so called) _singular _is rather  "transnumeral/number-neutral/number-indifferent (or whatever we call it)". 





> ...The rules of agreement of are peculiar in Hungarian.


Perhaps peculiar, but quite transparent: there is no agreement. The case endings, plural marker and postpositions appear only once, namely after the last element (typically a noun) while the attributes/qualifiers (including numbers) preceding the noun appear in their _basic _form (not marked). However, the usage of the  singular after numerals (and elsewhere) in Hungarian does not represent the same situation, in my opinion.

Let's see the main facts:
1. According to the actual (grammar) terminology, there are two forms of nouns (adjectives, pronouns ...) in  Hungarian: _singular _and _plural_
2. From the morphological point of view, there are two forms: _basic _(with no marker at all) and _plural _(provided with the marker _-k_).
3. As to the function, the _plural form_ unambiguously expresses the _plurality _(=more than one), but the _basic_ form is used consistently also in cases where, e.g. from  the IE point of view, the plural form would be expected instead of singular.

Now we have two main possibilities:
A) To suppose _a priori_ the strict (IE-like) opposition between singular and plural. In such case  we have to explain somehow all the "exceptions" from the expected usage (i.e. _singular _instead of _plural_).
B) To admit the intrinsic "number-neutral" feature of the _basic (singular) form_ of nouns. In this case - in my opinion - we are able to find a common/general explanation for all the discussed phenomena.

My personal observations _ad hoc_:
1. The absence of any marker in singular (vs. the explicit plural marker _-k_) itself suggests the _possibility _of the asymmetrical/different usage of the the singular vs. plural.
2. The absence of any marker in the basic form might (at least partially) explain also the lack of agreement, i.e. the attributes do not express any grammatical case nor the plurality, consequently the agreement is not automatically required. Ok, this could be a topic for a separe thread ...


----------



## Nino83

iezik said:


> The male lion is easily recognised by its mane.


I was speaking about bare nouns.
If we include definite and indefinite articles we've to introduce two concepts like arguments and predicates and the discussion will, inevitably, get more complex.

You can't say, for example, "lion is one of the big cats" or "leone è un mammifero". Anyway "the lion" and "il leone" denote an entire category, they are "generic".

On the other hand, you say "there are no apples", "non ci sono mele" if you want to indicate an unspecified quantity (categorial status). In these cases the definite article doesn't work.
You can't say "there is no apple/the apple" or "non c'è mela/la mela" to indicate an unspecified quantity.


----------



## franknagy

ahvalj said:


> Thank you. Could you make a short excerpt in English for those still not fluent in Hungarian?


1) Ikrek, mellek, cipők: hogy működik a magyar többes szám?
Theses:
a) The usage of singular body paired body parts is not excusively. The plural is usad sometimes. E.g. you can translate her breasts as  "melle"  (S) and "mellei" (P) to Hungarian.
b) The author has never heard singural "iker"="twin" only the plural "ikrek"="twins".
c) The author repeat my example "almát veszek" (S) where Russian uses plural "я куплю яьлоки".
d) The singular of nation name may mean a crowd " _Jön a török._ J_ön az ellenség" = The Turks are coming. The enemy comes."
_
2) Miért egy, hogyha sok?
Theses:
a) Comparison of languages: Where does the Plural exists at all? Certainly it does not exist in the Japonese language.
b) Comparison of languages: There are languages e.g. the Welsh [and the German] where many modes of making plural is used, including the unchanged singular form.
c) The "collectivum" where the plural means something else than more individuals. In Hungarian: "-ság, -ség".
d) What is the used form, (S) or (P) of the predicate in "Steve and Mary have moved from the village"? The author states that it depends _on the order of the predicate and the subjects_ in Hungarian.

3) Nádasdy Ádám: Számháború
This article is repeating the above theses.
The author is mentioning his teacher who has take the party of the singular in dubious cases:  "Let Hungarian language as different as possible from the other languages."


----------



## iezik

Nino83 said:


> Now, in the Indo-European and Bantu languages, the plural marker means "more than one", so nouns are plural when following a "plural" number (a number greater than one).



Mathematics treats the number (e.g. 101 or 1001) the same way in different languages, e.g. the first one is prime and both are odd, independent of language. The noun agreement (singular vs plural) does depend on language.

Nouns after plural numbers are not treated uniformly within IE languages. English plural "One hundred and one dalmatians" (also ) becomes Russian singular "101 далматинец" (as is also in Ukrainian, BHS, Slovenian).
English plural "Thousand and one nights" becomes singular in about the same languages as the previous title. But, in Italian, the former is plural (101 dalmata) wherease the latter is singular (Le mille e una notte). We can see that the noun agreement in Italian was made as Le mille e /una notte/, while e.g. in Spanish it was made /Las mil y una/ noches


----------



## iezik

Nino83 said:


> I was speaking about bare nouns.
> If we include definite and indefinite articles we've to introduce two concepts like arguments and predicates and the discussion will, inevitably, get more complex.



I wondered about the scope of the question. 

Is it narrow? Are you comparing "languages with articles that only omit articles in plural like Italian and English" versus other languages? German, French or Spanish are also together with Italian and English. But, initially you grouped IE languages together. So maybe you thought about wide scope.

Is it wide? The initial post took IE languages as examples of type 1. Here, you introduced "bare nouns". Do you understand as bare noun the form consisting of single word and with the least number of morphemes? There are some Slavic languages that describe lions in such bare singular or plural form, without semantic difference. The number is chosen probably for stylistic needs.

Serbian:
(plural) Mladi lavovi prvo počnu da love kada su stari tri meseca.
(singular)  Lavica nema grivu jer bi ona omela njenu delotvornost u lovu.


----------



## iezik

Nino83 said:


> Now, in the Indo-European and Bantu languages, the plural marker means "more than one", so nouns are plural when following a "plural" number (a number greater than one).



Swedish uses singular measurement noun with plural numeral "Jag väger 50 kilo" where most other European languages use plural "I weigh 50 kilos". This is yet another environment/case that is different between the languages.


----------



## Nino83

iezik said:


> Is it narrow? Is it wide?


Every info and contribution is good. 
You're right. I used IE while I was thinking about Romance and Germanic languages. I know very little about Slavic languages (while in Persian both singular and plular nouns can be used after numbers).


----------



## franknagy

Nino83 said:


> Do you use the plural in Turkish with determiners like "many, a lot of, few, some..."?
> True, I didn't think about it. If I'm not wrong attributive adjectives don't agree in gender, case and number with the noun in Turkish and Hungarian, while in IE languages and Swahili (and Bantu, in general) they agree with the noun, so maybe these languages are a bit more redundant.
> Interesting.
> I hope some native speaker could explain this. (Maybe these are undeclinable nouns?)


*Redundancy is not a forbidden thing. It is necessary especially in such languages where the unstressed and or final vowels are reduced. *The Hungarian language 
1. emphasises always the first syllable,
2. *the unstressed vowels are pronounced as clearly as the stressed ones*
therefore the redundant marking of plural is absolutely unnecessary.


----------



## franknagy

iezik said:


> Mathematics treats the number (e.g. 101 or 1001) the  Russian singular "101 далматинец"



Cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers in English, Russian and Hungarian
1 one один egy
2. two два kettő 
1 first первый első 
2. second второй második
11 eleven одинндцать tizenegy
11. eleventh одинaндцатый tizenegyik
12 twelve двенадцать tizenkettő
12. twelvth двенaдцатый tizenkettedik
21 twenty one двадцать один huszonegy
21. twenty first двадцать первый huszonegyedik
22 twenty two двадцать первый huszonkettő
22. twenty second двадцать второй huszonkettedik
101. one hundred and one сто один százegy
101. one hundred and first сто первый százegyedik
102 сто два hundred and two százkettő
102. сто второй hundred and second százkettedik

That is, in Hungarian only 1st and 2nd are irregular ordinal numbers, (10m+1, (10m+2) are regular ones.


----------



## ahvalj

franknagy said:


> *Redundancy is not a forbidden thing. It is necessary especially in such languages where the unstressed and or final vowels are reduced. *


I don't think it is often helpful, since the agreeing endings tend to be the same in the nouns and the attributes (at least this was the original Indo-European situation except in some pronouns): the development of the agreement was probably favored by the advantage mentioned below.



franknagy said:


> The Hungarian language
> 1. emphasises always the first syllable,
> 2. *the unstressed vowels are pronounced as clearly as the stressed ones*
> therefore the redundant marking of plural is absolutely unnecessary.


As it has been discussed recently, this entire construction works properly in the syntactic structure where each part of the speech has its rigidly prescribed place (e. g. the adjective precedes the noun). The grammatical agreement unbinds the syntax allowing to put words wherever the speaker wants in the sentence (logical limitations apply). Compare the nicely implemented Hungarian Accusative on _-t,_ which allows to put the object in the beginning (_Rózsákat vettem neked_). Imagine now that each word is grammatically self-explaining: you would be able to put whatever you want wherever you want (_"Piros__akat__ vettem neked rózsákat" / Красные я_купил себе розы; "Nekem pirosakat vettem rózsákat" / Себе красные я_купил розы _etc.).

P.S. By the way, how to say in Hungarian "I bought myself red [Pl.] and yellow [Sg.] roses"? The grammatical agreement would allow to express it the following way: "_Pirosakat és sárgát vettem neked rózsákat", "Rubrās flāvamque ēmī (mihī) rosās"._


----------



## OBrasilo

iezik said:
			
		

> But, in Italian, the former is plural (101 dalmata)


I think this is probably singular as well, as "dalmata" has the same form in both singular and plural.

- franknagy: Let me add the Slovenian and Italian numerals:


			
				franknagy said:
			
		

> Cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers in English, Russian and Hungarian
> 1 one один egy *en uno*
> 2. two два kettő *dva due*
> 1 first первый első  *prvi primo*
> 2. second второй második *drugi secondo*
> 11 eleven одинндцать tizenegy *enajst undici*
> 11. eleventh одинaндцатый tizenegyik *enajsti undicesimo*
> 12 twelve двенадцать tizenkettő *dvanajst dodici*
> 12. twelvth двенaдцатый tizenkettedik *dvanajsti dodicesimo*
> 21 twenty one двадцать один huszonegy *enaindvajset ventuno*
> 21. twenty first двадцать первый huszonegyedik *enaindvajseti ventunesimo*
> 22 twenty two двадцать первый huszonkettő *dvaindvajset ventidue*
> 22. twenty second двадцать второй huszonkettedik *dvaindvajesti ventiduesimo*
> 101. one hundred and one сто один százegy *sto en centouno*
> 101. one hundred and first сто первый százegyedik *sto prvi centunesimo*
> 102 сто два hundred and two százkettő *sto dva centodue*
> 102. сто второй hundred and second százkettedik *sto drugi centoduesimo*
> 
> That is, in Hungarian only 1st and 2nd are irregular ordinal numbers, (10m+1, (10m+2) are regular ones.


So in Slovenian, the irregularity also affects 101 and 102 but not, say, 21 and 22, while Italian is like Hungarian, irregularity only for first and second.


----------



## iezik

OBrasilo said:


> I think this is probably singular as well, as "dalmata" has the same form in both singular and plural.



It's true that the word has both forms the same. When I look at examples of use that show number by a verb, adjective or article, the film title is always seen in plural:
_I 101 dalmata che si scatenarono
La carica dei 101
Era il 1995 quando i famosi 101 dalmata_


----------



## OBrasilo

But you used as counterexample "le mille e una notte" which also has a plural article even though the noun is singular, so it's most likely the same case with the 101 dalmatians.


----------



## Nino83

If you say "centouno cos*e* da fare" you use the plural, while if you say "cento *e una* cosa" or "cento *e una* notte" (the title of a movie), then you use the singular. 
The same with "milleuno cos*e* da vedere a Roma" and "mille *e una* notte".


----------



## Nino83

It seems that Tagalog is another language with plural markers* and no mandatory classifiers, where singular nouns follow plural numbers.
_Anak_ (child) vs. _mga anak_ (children) => isang anak (one child), sampung anak (ten children).


> Tagalog count nouns, like their Korean cousins, are neutral about the number of things they can denote. Would they differ from count nouns of languages with a singular/plural morphology?  The singular form of the English noun ‘cow’, for example, differs from its Korean and Tagalog cousins in that it cannot denote two or more cows (taken together).


Numeral Classifiers and Count Nouns, Byeong-uk Yi, page 25

It seems that in some languages, the singular/bare noun is not exclusively singular. It can be singular in a given context, but it doesn't always indicate a singular item of something.

*Anyway the pluralizer _mga_ is not mandatory, so it could be different from the plural markers of some IE languages.


----------



## iezik

I think money and prices were not yet mentioned in this thread. Most European languages don't theat the currency unit any different from other nouns <number> <unit> as _e.g. "nine euros"_, but not German. German uses for most currencies unit in singular, e.g. _neun Euro, zwölf Mark_, and some (one?) in plural, "sechs Franken".


----------



## berndf

iezik said:


> I think money and prices were not yet mentioned in this thread. Most European languages don't theat the currency unit any different from other nouns <number> <unit> as _e.g. "nine euros"_, but not German. German uses for most currencies unit in singular, e.g. _neun Euro, zwölf Mark_, and some (one?) in plural, "sechs Franken".


That is a general trait of German and has nothing to do with currencies. Many units of measurement do not have a Plural, like _Gramm, Meter, Watt_, etc. while others have, like _Sekunde(n), Tag(e), Meile(n)_.


----------



## apmoy70

The Euro specifically is treated the same in Greek, as an indeclinable and singular noun (which is not common in Greek at all) so we too say *«εννέα ευρώ»* [eˈne.a evˈɾo] = _nine euro_.
If I recall correctly there was even a petition made to the European Commission in early 2000's by a few Greek philologists to accept the plural of *«Ευρώ»* [evˈɾo] (neut. nom. sing.) > *«Ευρώα»* [evˈɾo.a] (neut. nom. pl.) on the Euronotes, but the EC refused as they thought that it would ruin the image of the banknote (in short they put aesthetics over substance)


----------



## Nino83

In Italy it was a political decitions.


Spoiler: euro/euri



The issue of whether the correct plural form would be _euri_ or _euro_ remained open for a long time, predating the actual introduction of the currency. The Accademia della Crusca assigned to Severina Parodi, lexicographer, and to Luca Serianni, language historian, the task to give a response. They deliberated in favour of _euri_ in 1999 with the motivation that "euro is a masculine noun". But the issue was then re-examined many times. Finally, in 2001 the consensus of the Accademia coalesced in favour of invariability.[46] The rationale was based on the fact that abbreviated words originating from a longer word (for example _auto_ from _automobile_ (car) or _moto_ from _motocicletta_ (motorbike)) do not have a plural form, as well as the fact that the word _euro_ is considered an abbreviation of the word _Eurovaluta_ (European currency) . In 2002 an amendment to the financial act was proposed to adopt _euri_ as the plural form for public official deeds, but was quickly rejected by the Parliament.[47]


I think the plural form of the "euro" has little to do with the rules about plural in Italian.


----------



## Awwal12

Nino83 said:


> I asked you this because I "suspect" that this difference could be due to the different nature of numbers and other similar words indicating a quantity of something.
> In Latin "unus, una, unum", "duo, duae, duo", "tres, tres, tria" are clearly adjectives, like "many, few" and so on, so the "head" is the noun. The same in Swahili (numbers decline like adjectives, more or less).
> While in Finnish it seems that the number is a noun, and the meaning is (seems to be) similar to "two units of something", with the counted noun in the partitive case.
> The interesting thing is that in Turkish and Hungarian the noun is in the nominative case.


If I understand correctly, in Indo-European languages (Italian included) 1-4 are etymologically adjectives and 5-10 are ertymologically nouns. But in Russian, for instance, the ordinal numerals are also generally dominating over nouns (although not completely, and the exact pattern is very complex). The numbered nouns for 2-4 are indeed in genitive singular (literally "2 of a cow", "3 of a stool" - not as if anybody really analyzes it that way), but that is mostly because genitive singular for the most widespread declension paradigm coincided with the old nominative dual; for 5-10 it's quite predictably genitive plural (5 of what? - 5 of dogs, etc.).


----------



## Nino83

Awwal12 said:


> and 5-10 are ertymologically nouns.


The Latin dictionary says that both quinque and novem are numeral *adjectives*. 
I don't know how they are classified in Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish and other languages.


----------



## francisgranada

Terminologically (in grammar) a numeral in Hungarian is _név _(nomen). Thus we have:
_főnév _- noun ("nomen substantivum")
_melléknév _- adjective ("nomen adiectivum")
_számnév _- numeral ("nomen numerale")

All these "nomina" behave the same way in the sense that if they precede a noun, they are in the basic form. If a number is not  followed by any noun, it can take case endings (like the nouns and adjectives).  For example: _ötö*t* _(_five_ in accusative), but _öt háza*t*_ (_five houses_ in accusative).


----------



## Nino83

Thanks, francisgranada.
I think the difference doesn't lie in the nature of numerals, but it seems to depend on the different interpretation of bare nouns and plural affixes.


----------



## Awwal12

Nino83 said:


> The Latin dictionary says that both quinque and novem are numeral *adjectives*.


Ah, sorry. I totally forgot that 8 and 9 aren't cognates in Slavic and Romance/Germanic languages.


----------



## iezik

berndf said:


> Many units of measurement do not have a Plural, like _Gramm, Meter, Watt_, etc. while others have, like _Sekunde(n), Tag(e), Meile(n)_.


Thanks. I think I need a thicker grammar, Helbig & Buscha is rather short on such topics.


----------



## ahvalj

In modern Irish, nouns usually stand in Singular after numerals, e. g. _dhá bhád_ "two boats", _naoi gcarr_ "nine cars", _deich mbus_ "ten buses" (_Stenson N · 2008 · Basic Irish. A grammar and workbook: _78), whereas in Old Irish they followed the standard Indo-European pattern.


----------



## Nino83

Interesting, ahvalj. 
Does it happen in modern Scottish Gaelic too?


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> In Uralic the Singular is even used for the paired objects:
> 
> Finnish — _hänellä on kengät jalassa_ (liter. him–at is shoes foot–on) "he has shoes on his feet"



The use of the 3sg. here isn't because of the subject _kengät_ -- it is because in standard Finnish, possession clauses ("he has", etc.) usually have the form of presence clauses (similar to English "there is ..."), and in this type of clause, the verb is normally (in standard Finnish grammar) singular regardless of the plurality of the following noun.

Compare e.g.

_Minulla on liput otteluun _"I have the tickets for the match"

where _liput_ "tickets" is plural, but not a pair (or any other regular quantity like a triple, quadruple, etc.) -- yet the 3sg. verb form _on_ is also used here, as in the sentence with _kengät_.

If you use _kengät_ (in the meaning "pair of shoes") as the subject of a normal clause, then it takes the plural verb form in standard Finnish:

_Kengät olivat likaiset._ "The shoes were dirty."

There is a difference in the adjectival agreement features of nouns like _kengät_ versus that of plural nouns that don't refer to a pair (or other cluster): for example,

_Liput olivat halpoja_ "The tickets were cheap"

Here, _halpoja_ is the partitive plural of halpa "cheap", in contrast to the nominative plural _likaiset_ in the other sentence.



> _kahdet kirjat_ "two books, i due libri" (two in Nominative Plural + book in Nominative Plural)
> _kaksille kirjoille_ "to two sets of books" (two in Allative Plural + book in Allative Plural)



The first of these is "two sets of books", not "two books".


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> Interesting, ahvalj.
> Does it happen in modern Scottish Gaelic too?


It seems that not. For Scottish, I have found the following evidence — from _Gillies W · 2010 · Scottish Gaelic _(in _[Routledge language family descriptions] · 2010 · The Celtic languages_):

(p. 255)


> _an aon bhròg bheag_ "the one little shoe"
> _an dà bhròig bhig_ "the two little shoes"
> _na trì brògan beaga_ "the three little shoes"



(by the way, some Scottish nouns and adjectives may preserve the distinct Dual form).

(p. 263)


> 1 aon ghille "one lad"
> 2 dà ghille "two lads"
> 3 tri gillean "three lads"
> 4 ceithir gillean "four lads"
> 5 còig gillean "five lads"
> 6 sia gillean "six lads"
> 7 seachd gillean "seven lads"
> 8 ochd gillean "eight lads"
> 9 naoi gillean "nine lads"
> 10 deich gillean "ten lads"





> The numerals _ceud, mìle_ and _muillean_ are followed by the singular. Historically they were followed by the genitive plural […] the coincidence of nominative singular and genitive plural in the powerful Class 1 noun category has generated the synchronic rule.


_ceud_ "hundred", _mìle_ "thousand", _muillean_ "million"


About Irish: _Ó Baoill DP · 2010 · Irish_ (from the same _[Routledge language family descriptions] · 2010 · The Celtic languages_): 179


> The standard language dictates that the noun following numerals be in the singular but all dialects use both singular and plural forms after numerals.





> _trí chat_ "three cats", _seacht mbó_ "seven cows" (singular only)
> _cúig chathaoir/cathaoireacha_ "five chairs" (singular or plural)
> _naoi gcoinneal/gcoinnle_ "nine candles' (singular or plural)


----------



## ahvalj

Gavril said:


> The use of the 3sg. here isn't because of the subject _kengät_ -- it is because in standard Finnish, possession clauses ("he has", etc.) usually have the form of presence clauses (similar to English "there is ..."), and in this type of clause, the verb is normally (in standard Finnish grammar) singular regardless of the plurality of the following noun.
> 
> Compare e.g.
> 
> _Minulla on liput otteluun _"I have the tickets for the match"
> 
> where _liput_ "tickets" is plural, but not a pair (or any other regular quantity like a triple, quadruple, etc.) -- yet the 3sg. verb form _on_ is also used here, as in the sentence with _kengät_.
> 
> If you use _kengät_ (in the meaning "pair of shoes") as the subject of a normal clause, then it takes the plural verb form in standard Finnish:
> 
> _Kengät olivat likaiset._ "The shoes were dirty."
> 
> There is a difference in the adjectival agreement features of nouns like _kengät_ versus that of plural nouns that don't refer to a pair (or other cluster): for example,
> 
> _Liput olivat halpoja_ "The tickets were cheap"
> 
> Here, _halpoja_ is the partitive plural of halpa "cheap", in contrast to the nominative plural _likaiset_ in the other sentence.


I understand this (and Russian uses the same construction, "at me is"), but I meant the Singular in _jalassa_.


----------



## ahvalj

Gavril said:


> The first of these is "two sets of books", not "two books".


Yes, I see. Thanks.


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> I understand this (and Russian uses the same construction, "at me is"), but I meant the Singular in _jalassa_.



My mistake. I will keep that post up because it still seems relevant to the thread topic.

For what it's worth, the form _kengät jaloissa_ "shoes on feet" is also used, as is e.g. _hanskat käsissä_ "gloves on hands" (where _käsissa_ can be interchanged with singular _kädessä_). I'm not sure if examples like _kengät jalassa_ demonstrate any special property of pair nouns ("foot", "hand" etc.) in Finnish; even in English, it is not unthinkable to say _shoes on foot_ with this meaning, it just sounds archaic. (Also, the phrase "on foot" already has a different meaning that could create ambiguity here.)


----------



## djmc

In Breton numbers take a singular. Many nouns borrowed from French are normally plural. For example karotez is borrowed from carottes or carrots inEnglish. This forms a singulatif karotezenn i.e. a carrot which also has its own plural karoezennou.


----------

