En réponse à Andreas Johansson : >It may be noted that some modern dialects, including literary Taxte, persist >in using the singular form of nouns with cardinals. I dread to see the >anadewism for this one ... Welsh, Finnish, Turkish, Arabic with numbers above ten, Dutch with measurement units and a few common words (like "bier" or "koffie". The Netherlands do have a pub culture ;)))) ), German I think in the same way as Dutch, IIRC some Slavic and/or Baltic languages do that too (Polish?), etc... In other words, it's a pretty common pattern to have singular nouns when explicitly counted. After all, why specify some as vague as "plural" when you already know exactly how many of the things you're talking about? :))) Needless to say, Maggel doesn't do that. It would be too easy ;))) . In Maggel, the noun agrees in number with the number in front of it (singular for one, dual for two, definite plural for the rest). But if the number is composite, only the first (and always smallest, usually the unit) part appears in front of the noun. So when the number is 21 for instance, the noun agrees in the singular number (as in |a ghho a rin tueisbfiba aineh|: 21 beautiful women - women is |rin| here, i.e. in singular form -. Note that it's pronounced [@'Co: @'r\E~ 'DeZvIv a~'deI]). Also, the noun must always be preceeded with the article and in complement form when it has one. And things get even stranger when we use numbers like "8000" or "million" which are actually nouns. The counted noun is then a nominal complement introduced by the preposition |f|: "at" with article, and must be in the plural *indefinite* (although the plural indefinite usually means that the actual amount is unknown). Hehe, why should we do simple things when we can do complicated ones? ;)))) Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.