Abstract
The interaction of numerals and number-marking has generated much research in both morphosyntax and semantics in those domains. In this paper, I propose an analysis of number-marking in the numeral-noun constructions of Estonian. They are noteworthy for the existence of two morphosyntactic frames. In one, both the numeral and noun are singular, and the noun bears partitive case. In the other, both the numeral and noun are plural, and there is no assignment of partitive case. I propose an analysis whereby the head assigning partitive case is of the same syntactic category as the head introducing plurality: Borer's (2005) Div. Previous accounts do not capture the generalization that the numeral always matches the noun's number-marking. I propose it is another instance of the language's already robust system of nominal concord
Highlights
A major area of study within nominal morphosyntax is the combination of numerals and nouns, and the number-marking of nouns in such constructions.1 Compare the English and Hungarian examples in (1)-(2). (1) English:(2) Hungarian: a. * two dog b. two dog-s a. három gyerek three child b. *három gyerek-ek three child-PLIn English, two can combine with plural dogs but not singular dog
Landau does not further specify what he means by layered plurality, and he does not go into detail about how the numeral’s proposed inherent number value interacts with the system that he develops
I proposed that number-marking on numerals in Estonian is another instance of the language’s robust system of nominal concord
Summary
A major area of study within nominal morphosyntax is the combination of (cardinal) numerals and nouns (hereafter numeral-noun constructions, or NNCs), and the number-marking of nouns in such constructions. Compare the English and Hungarian examples in (1)-(2). There are nouns which are not strictly speaking pluralia tantum but may be plural without a clear interpretive difference These nouns can be counted using [PL]-NNCs, as shown in (5)-(6) below. The observations from the present article remind me of this, because in [PL]-NNCs, the numerals count whatever groups are available for the particular noun, again determined by context (e.g., debate teams) or real-world knowledge (e.g., the knowledge that gloves and mittens come in pairs). They share the assumption that numerals are (at least in some instances) pre-specified for their number values, which misses the generalization the the numeral’s number value always matches the value of the noun
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
