New CBB

Táálen has 10 noun classes:
LR : Long Rigid : trees, sticks, knives, etc.
LF : Long Flexible : rope, thread, draglines
FR : Flat Rigid : shells, books, mica
FF : Flat Flexible : fabric, leaves
RR : Round Rigid : stones, balls, boxes
RF : Round Flexible : bushes, hair
IN : Incohesive : clouds, abstract nouns
CO : Contained : bags of something, jar of oil
AS : Animate Still : bird at rest
AM : Animate Moving : bird in flight

These classifiers do a number of other things:
- the act as definite articles. 'o' is the AM classifier, and 'dauyn' is "spider. 'odauyn' is "the spider".
- 3rd person pronouns. 'eits' "to look at", 'n' is first person, 'oitsan' AM-see-1 "I look at it"
- incorporated for verbs of handling, motion, placement, possession : 'ka' hold 'oka' hold something living.

Is this too much? Too many roles for the classes/classifiers to fill?

Well, classes and classifiers are not the same thing, despite the confusingly similar names. Depending on what you mean them to be, your system also has other problems.

_________________
♀♥Ø

I know they're not the same thing - classifiers are, typically, items like "loaf" or "pair". However, these guys take on some of those roles (when they're incorporated into a noun, for example, they behave a lot like a classifier), so it's vague to me. What other problems are there?

That's probably classes, in which case you're fine; one of my conlangs has nine, and they're not even as strictly semantically determined. Classifiers you'd have many more of, and they'd occur in fewer contexts.

Even if these were classifiers, It would be far from overkill. Most languages have lots more.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Classifiers are more than classes, more than 20 maybe
They are semantically determined (classes are somewhat too, but classifiers do that clearly)
Classifiers of the same root can be changed, they are not a property of the word but of its meaning.
There is no agreement between the classifiers of the head and dependents.

These features can of course give different definitions, but those look like classes.

I've never seen the number matter in determining classifierness...

That said, these classes are semantically determined, very clearly.
There is no agreement between the classes of the head and dependents.
Classes of the same root can be changed - though this is very class-like (at least, in the Bantu languages it's like that), so I'm not sure this is phrased correctly.

If one wants to say "the loaf of bread", you'd use the contained class, with a marker to indicate change of class. Unless it's incorporated, in which case you don't. This applies to other "classes" as well.

For example:
the spider = odáú'n /o.dāw.n̩/ (high tone on daw, low tone elsewhere)
I see (something living) = netoitsé /nɛ.toj.tsɛ̄/
ne "1st p." + ta "theme applic." + o "AS class" + eits "see" + e "epenthetic"

the bread = lhapara (lha "RF class" + para "bread")
loaf of bread = íúbara (il "CO class" + class change deaspiration + para)
I see bread (lots of it) = netleitsé para (ne + ta + lha + eits + e)
I see loaf of bread = ndíleitsé para (ne + ta + il +eits +e)

They may not be classifiers, but there are classifierish behaviors. Do I just call them whatever I want?

Normally the linguistic classes cannot be clearly defined.
Just take parameters and decide if they are more class/gender-like or like classifiers.

You task is easy. I just realized I should maybe call the Mîzmiz classifiers classes, too. They are 90 and the semantic definition is a bit tigher.
"k_l" 'My maternal male relative of the preist estate, older than me'
But syntax still uses them as classes.

Back to your question.
No, absolutely not.
Categories should interact in a good lang. (It seems I'm again resiting the prodcast.)

Are you talking "numeral classifiers", "possessive classifiers", or what kind of noun-classifier?

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

I realized I don't really understand the system.
Nominal classifiers of course. Numeral classifiers are distinguished so that they join a numeral word.

But "numeral classifiers" are a kind of noun-classifier.
Languages with pervasive use of "numeral classifiers" behave (grammatically) as if all nouns are measure-nouns, except for several "units of measure" which are used as "numeral classifiers".
Like, "a hundred head of cattle".
There may be dozens or hundreds of noun-classes, each of which takes its own "numeral classifier".
If noun-classes are shown by "numeral classifiers", there are likely to be from twice to twenty times as many noun-classes as there might be in a more traditional "gender" system.

See whichever and however many of the following seem interesting, convenient, and worthwhile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifier_%28linguistics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_classifiers
http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-466.html
http://wals.info/chapter/55
http://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/papers/BenSie_final.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/The-Acquisition-Numeral-Classifiers-Japanese/dp/3110183676
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_work.asp?id=38618
http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2010_3_04_7537.pdf

---

As for possessive classifiers, look up this search:
http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?&q=possessive+classifiers
.
Especially look at http://wals.info/chapter/59.
Lots of languages have more than one way to form a possessive phrase; for instance English has the Saxon genitive "the director's office" and the Norman genitive "the office of the director".
In some languages, the choice of which way must be used, is conditioned, lexically, by the possessed noun.
In some languages, there are many ways to form a possessive; one language has 31 classes of nouns, and each noun, if possessed, must be shown to be possessed by the means specific to its class.

Possessive-classifier-marked noun-classes tend to be few in number, rather like genders; but a language with numeral-classifier-marked noun-classes OTOH can have 40 to 300 noun-classes.

---

From Wikipedia and from this search it looks like people writing about Chinese tend to use the phrase "nominal classifier" to talk about Chinese's numeral classifiers. That may be where the confusion arises.

See
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kff6bjGGbRYC&dq=Classifiers:+A+Typology+of+Noun+Categorization+Devices+Alexandra+Y.+Aikhenvald

FAIK (since I haven't read that book), there may be other types of noun-classifiers than numeral-classifiers and possessive-classifiers (and concordial noun-class systems a.k.a. "genders").

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.