LINGUIST List 14.1560

Mon Jun 2 2003

Qs: Dual/Slavonic Langs; English 'Intentsional'

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


  1. Antonio Ben�tez, Evolution of number in Slavonic languages
  2. Gloria C, Inten*ionality, inten*ional

Message 1: Evolution of number in Slavonic languages

Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:46:38 +0000
From: Antonio Ben�tez <>
Subject: Evolution of number in Slavonic languages

Dear LigusitList members:

It would be extremely useful for me if anyone can suggest to me any
idea about the following topics: 1) Distinctive features of the
grammatical number in Slavonic languages, and 2) Main consequences of
the disappearance of dual in Slavonic languages. I asked myself such
things as: what morphological implications took this disappearance?
(main consequences, I suppose concern the numeral phrase), and also,
what typological implications should we expect when a language loose
the dual number? I promise to post a note summarizing the huge amount
(I hope) of answers I will surely receive.

Best regards,


Language-Family: Slavic Subgroup; Code: IEL
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Inten*ionality, inten*ional

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 12:04:51 +0000
From: Gloria C <>
Subject: Inten*ionality, inten*ional

Dear all,

I am a PhD student in Linguistics: at the moment I am working in the
field of Lexical Semantics.

I am writing to ask the native speakers of English, but not
necessarily, if it is possible to spell the adjective ''intensional''
(as opposed to ''extensional'' of the logico-philosophical tradition),
or the noun ''intensionality'' (semanticity), or the adverb
''intensionally'' with a ''t'' (intentional, intentionality, and
intentionally), meaning exactly the same thing.

If it is not possible, does the ''t-spelling'' exist? Do the two forms
have distinct meanings pertaining to the same logico-philosophical,
linguistic domain or has the ''intentional-spelling'' only the ''?

Thank you for your attentiona and help!

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue