Detail #30: Two ideas for lexical derivation

Having perfective aspect morphology derive historically from a definite object marker is a bit been-there/done-that as far as ideas in this blog goes. However, aspect morphology can be interesting in other ways.

The detail I like here is the idea of having verbs along the line of arrive formed from the preposition one would use to express movement to the place being the object of the arrival, and a perfective morpheme. However, these would then grammaticalize into just average verbs, and maybe use a separate perfective morpheme to mark actual perfectiveness, alternatively lack imperfective forms.

Another thing I've been thinking of (and which could be interesting to combine with the previous idea) is object-type markers. These would mark perfective aspect, but the marker is semantically determined by the kind of action or kind of object involved:

ŋei - intransitive verb (only occurs with normally transitive ones), (also maybe some types of objects under some restrictions - non-kinetic non-... action)
ga - human object, also marks indirect object of bivalent verb (and then isn't restricted to perfective verbs)
den - liquid or very soft object (up to dough-type consistency), verbs such as pour, ...
toz - mass object
iŋk - object of ingestion or consumption
sek - structured object, collective object
sim - object of transaction
...

Now, these could maybe combine with adpositions too to form verbs:
in + iŋk = swallow
in + den = fill
out + toz = eject
out + den = ejaculate
out + sim = have sold at too low a price
at + sek = to arrange
in + ga = to have intercourse with, to marry?

Note that they would not be compounds, but separate words that together form phrasal verbs of some kind.

Detail #29: A quantifierish thing

I bet this exists in some language.

A noun along the lines of 'pair, couple' designating - in isolation or with a noun-phrase any set of two that together are perceived or thought of as having a close connection or bond or togetherness; could include "romantic" pairs, doesn't have to. This would be its primary meaning, and the way it is most likely to pop up.

With numerals, though, it would lose the 'pair' meaning, and just signify the close-connection:

pair you : the two of you, you lovebirds(?)

pair shoe: two shoes, a pair of shoes

fifty pair soldier: a platoon, a unit of fifty soldiers or so.

four pair string instrument: string quartets 

This could further interact with definiteness or somesuch in the following manner:

five some? pair wheel: five actual pairs of wheels. (Presumably assembled so the pairs are on some axes or somesuch.)

the pair wagon: the caravan of wagons.

pair the wagon: the two wagons. 

the five the pair wagon: the caravan of five wagons.

Finally, with "one", it marks unification of something:

one pair land: a country (several regions unified)

one pair herd: a herd (would indicate a herd that earlier has been several herds?)

So basically, a noun that if not given a specific number defaults to two, but with other numbers or  determiners, it may be interpreted as another number or a less specific number.

A language with a dual number could use the dual in a similar way as well - or of course have even more complex interactions between the quantifier and the numbers and such, the use of isolating typology in this post was mostly to advertise isolating languages a bit.