Salmoneus wrote: ↑26 Jan 2024 21:20
My point is that what I said about "bowl" also applies to all other nouns.
To put simply, you say you have "classifiers" that specify the shape of an object, rather than nouns, but my point is that "nouns" are mostly just things that specify the shape of an object, so this isn't a real difference. [99.9% of the time an "object shaped exactly the same as a cat" is a cat, and any difference can be chalked up to the inherent ambiguity of all words (it's not that the other cat-objects are in some way not really cat-objects, just that they're not the type of cat-object you'd normally assume).]
The real difference between real-world classifiers and real-world nouns is just that the former is always a relatively small and usually closed class, while the latter is a vast and open class. If your classifier class is as large as the class of nouns, then they're just nouns, and if it's significantly smaller then you're going to run into issues of ambiguity and extensive paraphrasis.
I'll also note, incidentally, that "open-topped vessel" isn't purely a description of shape, either. The concept of a "vessel" (something used to contain other things) is a functional and teleological one, not a shape-based one. For that matter, "topped" also encodes orientation. "Concave object" would be the purely shape-based classification.
So yes, I think this is just having a specific order of adjectives, and having adjectives be able to be used substantively.
In terms of the order of adjectives, it's certainly possible to have a fixed order for material and position adjectives, yes, just as English as fixed adjective orders too. [big red dog, not red big dog, except in unusual cases of disambiguation with non-normal stress to mark the abnormal syntax].
I'm skeptical whether a language would ever have a convention as specific as requiring all nouns to be accompanied by adjectives of material and position in all instances, though.
Imagine: "help, a shark is eating my leg!" - "I'm afraid your sentence is ungrammatical child, and so I do not understand. Please specify, what is the shark made out of and where is it located? Likewise, what is your leg made of and where is it?" - "Just grab the harpoon!" - "I'm sorry, but which harpoon? The steel one, or the bronze one?" - "you only have one fucking spear!!!" - "yes, but grammatically you must specify both the substance and the location!"
I think in practice people would often omit these words. After all, once you've said "the cat is lying on the mat", how often do you need to specify that the cat is a cat made out of cat-material and that the cat is lying ON TOP of the mat (not attached beside it like a clock on the wall) and that the mat itself is positioned horizontally on a surface? Do you need to specify that so often that it's actually work taking the time to always say?