Explanation: While singular and plural are the most common distinctions, grammatical number encompasses a broader range of quantity distinctions (e.g., dual, paucal) and is not exclusively limited to singular/plural in all languages. Furthermore, it is expressed through morphological and agreement systems, not solely by definition.

Explanation: The presence of a grammatical number system is not universal across all languages. Some languages express quantity solely through lexical means, such as numerals or quantifiers, or through other grammatical structures, rather than obligatorily marking number on nouns or related elements.

Explanation: The singular number, by linguistic convention, denotes exactly one referent. The category representing two or more referents is the plural.

Explanation: Pronouns are, in fact, among the parts of speech most commonly observed to exhibit number distinctions across a wide variety of languages, often more so than nouns or adjectives.

Explanation: Semantic number refers to the actual quantity of referents, expressed lexically. Grammatical number, conversely, is the linguistic feature that marks quantity through morphology or syntax.

Explanation: Reduplication, the process of repeating a part of a word or the entire word, is indeed one of the recognized morphological mechanisms employed by languages to formally express grammatical number.

Explanation: Grammatical number marking can indeed deviate from the actual quantity of referents. Phenomena such as the use of plural pronouns for singular referents to express respect (e.g., the royal 'we') or grammatical rules treating certain plurals as singular (e.g., Ancient Greek neuter plurals) demonstrate this divergence.

Explanation: Grammatical number refers to the linguistic marking of quantity through morphology or syntax, whereas semantic number refers to the actual quantity itself, often expressed lexically. They are distinct concepts.

Explanation: The primary function of grammatical number in linguistics is to encode distinctions related to quantity or count, differentiating between singular, plural, and potentially other categories like dual or paucal.

Explanation: Grammatical number is most frequently expressed through morphological processes, such as altering word endings (inflection) or having related words change form to match (agreement), rather than solely through word order or lexical items.

Explanation: The most pervasive number distinction observed across languages, including English, is between the singular (one referent) and the plural (more than one referent).

Explanation: Linguistic typology demonstrates that grammatical number is not a universal feature; some languages lack this category entirely, relying on other means to convey quantity.

Explanation: The core distinction lies in quantity: singular denotes a single referent, while plural denotes a quantity exceeding one referent.

Explanation: While number distinctions can appear on various parts of speech, pronouns are frequently cited as the category most consistently exhibiting number marking across diverse languages.

Explanation: While word order is crucial for conveying meaning in many languages, it is not typically listed as a primary method for the *formal morphological expression* of grammatical number, unlike affixation, reduplication, or suppletion.

Explanation: Semantic number refers to the real-world quantity of referents, whereas grammatical number is the linguistic system (morphology, syntax) used to encode or signal these quantity distinctions.

Explanation: A 'form-meaning mismatch' occurs when the grammatical form (e.g., plural marking) does not correspond directly or exclusively to the semantic quantity of referents, as seen in cases of politeness marking or grammatical exceptions.

Explanation: Joseph Greenberg's linguistic universal hierarchy posits that if a language possesses a dual number category, it must also possess a plural number category. This implies a dependency where the plural is a prerequisite for the dual.

Explanation: In languages that possess an obligatory dual number, the plural form is typically reserved for quantities strictly greater than two, meaning three or more items. The dual specifically denotes exactly two.

Explanation: The paucal number category signifies a small, indefinite quantity, often translated as 'a few.' It does not indicate a precise quantity but rather a quantity that is more than one or two but not necessarily large.

Explanation: When a language includes both a dual (specifically two) and a paucal (a few) number category, the paucal typically commences its range at three, distinguishing itself from the dual.

Explanation: The 'greater paucal' denotes a larger, inexact group than a standard paucal, rather than signifying a precise quantity of exactly four items. It represents a quantity that is 'more than a few' but not necessarily a large plural.

Explanation: While the quadral number does denote exactly four items, its primary documented occurrences are within pronouns in languages of Oceania and in sign languages, not predominantly in European languages.

Explanation: The quintal number denotes exactly five items, but its presence is primarily noted in pronouns within sign languages, and it is not commonly marked on nouns across most languages.

Explanation: The 'greater plural' is indeed a grammatical category that denotes a quantity significantly larger than the standard plural, often representing a very large, inexact number of items.

Explanation: The 'greatest plural' is a number category that signifies a quantity even larger than the 'greater plural,' representing an extremely high or even uncountable number of items.

Explanation: Distributive plurals emphasize the separation or distinctness of multiple entities, viewing them as individual items or in different locations/times. This contrasts with collective plurals, which view multiple entities as a single unit.

Explanation: A 'conflated number' category refers to a grammatical form that merges or combines the semantic distinctions of two or more separate number categories, such as grouping singular and dual concepts into a single form.

Explanation: The 'dual of the plural' in Classical Arabic signifies multiple sets of two items, implying a minimum quantity of six items (two sets of three or more, or two sets of two if interpreted loosely). It does not indicate a minimum of four.

Explanation: The 'plural of the plural,' also termed the 'double plural,' is a grammatical construction where the standard plural form of a noun is itself pluralized to signify multiple distinct groups or sets of items.

Explanation: A 'Frankendual' is a linguistic term describing an unusual or constructed dual number system, often resulting from the complex interaction of morphological elements, rather than referring to a standard or common dual marking.

Explanation: The 'nondual' number category is a linguistic classification that encompasses any quantity other than exactly two. It typically includes singular and plural referents.

Explanation: Inverse number marking, as observed in languages like Kiowa, functions by indicating the number that is *absent* or changed, rather than the number that is present.

Explanation: Breton employs 'composed numbers,' such as 'daoulagadou,' which combine dual and plural markers to signify multiple sets of two items, illustrating a complex number formation strategy.

Explanation: A singular-dual distinction groups 'one' item into the singular category and 'two' items into a separate dual category. The statement incorrectly suggests they are grouped together.

Explanation: Distributive plurals focus on the distinctness or separation of entities within a group, rather than emphasizing their unity. Collective plurals are associated with the concept of unity.

Explanation: Marshallese pronouns exhibit a complex number system, distinguishing not only singular and plural but also dual, trial, and quadral/paucal categories, reflecting a highly nuanced grammatical treatment of quantity.

Explanation: Joseph Greenberg's linguistic universal hierarchy proposes that the presence of a dual number category necessitates the presence of a plural number category within a language.

Explanation: When a language possesses a distinct dual category for exactly two items, the plural form is conventionally reserved for quantities exceeding two, signifying three or more items.

Explanation: In languages that include both a dual and a paucal number category, the paucal typically commences at a quantity of three, distinguishing it from the dual's specific reference to two.

Explanation: The 'greater paucal' signifies a quantity that is larger and more indefinite than a standard paucal, representing a broader range of 'a few' or 'several' items.

Explanation: The 'quadral' number category is specifically defined as denoting a quantity of exactly four items.

Explanation: The 'nondual' number category encompasses all quantities except for exactly two, typically including singular and plural referents.

Explanation: Inverse number systems employ grammatical marking to indicate the number that is *not* represented or is changed, rather than the number that is explicitly present.

Explanation: A 'composed number' is a grammatical category formed by combining distinct number markers. In Breton, 'daoulagadou' combines dual and plural elements to denote multiple pairs.

Explanation: Marshallese pronouns exhibit a complex number system that includes distinctions beyond singular and plural, such as dual, trial, and quadral/paucal, making it an example of a language with an elaborated number system.

Explanation: The 'plural of the plural' or 'double plural' is a grammatical construction used to denote multiple distinct groups or collections of items, effectively pluralizing the plural form itself.

Explanation: Obligatory plural marking on all nouns is notably prevalent in the languages of Western and Northern Eurasia, as well as in most parts of Africa, rather than being most common in South American languages.

Explanation: Isolating languages, characterized by a low degree of inflectional morphology, typically exhibit a tendency towards minimal or non-obligatory plural marking, often relying on context or separate lexical items to convey plurality.

Explanation: While Modern Hebrew primarily utilizes singular and plural forms for nouns, certain nouns, particularly those related to paired body parts or measurements, retain distinct dual forms.

Explanation: Basque exhibits a complex system of grammatical number. Its nouns are inflected for four number categories (indefinite, definite singular, definite plural, definite close plural), and its verbs distinguish between four singular persons and three plural persons.

Explanation: Languages such as Chinese, which are largely analytic, typically do not mark number obligatorily on nouns. Plurality is often inferred from context or indicated by specific quantifiers or particles when necessary for clarity.

Explanation: Analytic languages, characterized by minimal inflectional morphology, typically employ strategies such as word order and auxiliary particles to convey grammatical information, including number, which is less frequently marked morphologically.

Explanation: Number particles are more commonly observed in languages of regions such as Australia and Austronesia, rather than being a typical feature for indicating plurality in European languages, which often rely more on inflection or articles.

Explanation: Bantu languages are known for their robust systems of noun class marking, which often include distinctions related to number. Number marking is generally present, not absent, in both singular and plural forms within these languages.

Explanation: Japanese, like many East Asian languages, typically marks plurality optionally or not at all on nouns. Context, quantifiers, or specific plural markers are used only when emphasis or clarity is required.

Explanation: In Assamese, classifiers play a significant role in determining noun quantity and can integrate with the grammatical category of number, often by attaching as suffixes to nouns or numerals.

Explanation: In languages featuring a 'general' number category (also known as transnumeral), the default noun form is typically ambiguous regarding number, meaning it can refer to one or more items. Specific singular (singulative) or plural (plurative) forms are then derived or specified when needed.

Explanation: The phenomenon of obligatory plural marking on all nouns is frequently observed in the linguistic families of Western and Northern Eurasia, as well as across much of Africa.

Explanation: Isolating languages, characterized by minimal inflection, generally exhibit a preference for non-obligatory or absent plural marking, relying on context or lexical items rather than morphological affixes.

Explanation: In languages such as Chinese and Japanese, grammatical number marking on nouns is typically optional and conveyed through context, quantifiers, or specific plural markers when clarity or emphasis is required.

Explanation: In languages such as Tagalog, number particles like 'mga' serve as grammatical markers to explicitly indicate the plural form of a noun.

Explanation: Grammatical number is indeed a feature that influences nouns, pronouns, and verbs in English, necessitating agreement. For example, 'cat' (singular noun) corresponds with 'it' (singular pronoun) and 'is' (singular verb form), whereas 'cats' (plural noun) corresponds with 'they' (plural pronoun) and 'are' (plural verb form).

Explanation: Mass nouns, by definition, typically refer to substances or concepts that are not countable and are therefore generally invariant in grammatical number. While count nouns like 'apple' can be 'apples', mass nouns like 'milk' or 'gold' do not typically form plurals in standard usage.

Explanation: Xavante presents a notable exception to subject-verb agreement regarding number; its transitive verbs agree with the number of the object, not the subject.

Explanation: English demonstratives exhibit number agreement. The singular forms 'this' and 'that' shift to the plural forms 'these' and 'those,' respectively, when referring to multiple items.

Explanation: In Arabic, the 'inanimate plural' rule dictates that plural inanimate objects are treated grammatically as feminine singular, affecting agreement with adjectives and verbs.

Explanation: Collective nouns, such as 'team,' are often treated as grammatically singular, representing a single unit. However, in certain dialects or contexts (e.g., British English), they can take plural agreement, reflecting agreement 'in sensu' (in meaning).

Explanation: Number agreement is a grammatical phenomenon where elements such as verbs, adjectives, and determiners adjust their form to align with the grammatical number (singular, plural, etc.) of the noun or pronoun they modify or predicate.

Explanation: French grammar mandates that adjectives agree in number (and gender) with the nouns they modify. This agreement often involves a change in the adjective's form, typically adding an 's' for the plural.

Explanation: In the sentence 'Those apples are fresh,' the noun 'apples,' the demonstrative pronoun 'those,' and the verb 'are' all exhibit plural number, demonstrating agreement across different parts of speech.

Explanation: 'Gold' is a mass noun, referring to a substance. Unlike count nouns such as 'chair,' 'book,' or 'table,' mass nouns are generally not used in plural forms and remain invariant in grammatical number.

Explanation: The grammatical rule known as the 'inanimate plural' in Arabic treats plural nouns referring to non-human entities (inanimate objects or animals) as feminine singular for agreement purposes.

Explanation: Collective nouns typically function as singular entities, but certain dialects, particularly British English, allow for plural agreement when the focus is on the individual members of the group rather than the group as a unit.

Explanation: In this context, 'those' functions as a demonstrative pronoun, agreeing in plural number with the noun 'apples' and the verb 'are'.

Explanation: The modern newspaper was formed by a merger in 1883. Its predecessor, the 'Florida Union,' was founded much earlier, in 1864, and the merger created 'The Florida Times-Union'.

Explanation: The 'Florida Union' was founded in 1864 in Union-occupied Jacksonville and was established as a Northern and Republican paper, aligning with the Union cause.

Explanation: The newspaper was owned by the Florida Publishing Company, which was jointly held by three major railroads: the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, the Florida East Coast Railway, and the Seaboard Air Line Railway, for a significant portion of the 20th century.

Explanation: In 2017, Gatehouse Media acquired the newspaper from Morris Communications. Gannett later became the owner by merging with Gatehouse Media in 2019, not directly from Morris Communications in 2017.

Explanation: Charles H. Jones founded the 'Florida Daily Times' in 1881. The 'Florida Union' was founded in 1864 by J. K. Stickney and W. C. Morrill.

Explanation: The current newspaper was established in 1883 through the merger of two competing Jacksonville papers: the 'Florida Union' and the 'Florida Daily Times'.

Explanation: The 'Florida Union' experienced periods of financial difficulty and ownership changes, during which it abandoned daily publication before its format was reinstated by subsequent owners prior to the 1883 merger.

Explanation: In 1983, Morris Communications acquired the Florida Publishing Company, which owned the newspaper, for $200 million, not $120 million. The sellers were not the railroad companies directly, but the Florida Publishing Company.

Explanation: Charles H. Jones established the 'Florida Daily Times' in 1881 subsequent to H. B. McCallum, the proprietor of the 'Florida Union,' declining his offer to purchase that paper.

Explanation: The Florida Times-Union is widely recognized as Florida's oldest newspaper, tracing its origins back to the founding of the 'Florida Union' in 1864.

Explanation: The historical accounts indicate the opposite: the 'Florida Daily Times' achieved dominance, leading its owner to purchase the struggling 'Florida Union,' culminating in their merger.

Explanation: The railroad ownership concluded in 1983 with the sale of the Florida Publishing Company to Morris Communications. CSX Transportation is a successor entity to two of the original railroad owners but was not the direct cause of the ownership change.

Explanation: Following the merger of the 'Florida Union' and the 'Florida Daily Times,' the inaugural publication under the consolidated title 'The Florida Times-Union' occurred on February 4, 1883.

Explanation: When H. B. McCallum acquired the 'Florida Union' in 1876, it had already ceased daily publication. McCallum's action was to reinstate it as a daily morning paper, not convert it back to weekly.

Explanation: Following its acquisition by Morris Communications in 1983, the 'Times-Union' became the largest newspaper within the Morris chain, not the smallest.

Explanation: The predecessors of CSX Transportation (Atlantic Coast Line and Seaboard Air Line) and the Florida East Coast Railway were among the original railroad owners of the newspaper. Both successor companies maintain their headquarters in Jacksonville.

Explanation: The 'Florida Union,' established in 1864, was founded by J. K. Stickney and W. C. Morrill.

Explanation: The merger of the 'Florida Union' and the 'Florida Daily Times,' resulting in the formation of 'The Florida Times-Union,' occurred in 1883.

Explanation: In October 2017, Gatehouse Media finalized its acquisition of The Florida Times-Union from Morris Communications as part of a broader transaction.

Explanation: Established during the Civil War in Union-occupied territory, the 'Florida Union' adopted a Northern and Republican political stance.

Explanation: Charles H. Jones initiated the 'Florida Daily Times' after H. B. McCallum, the owner of the rival 'Florida Union,' declined his offer to purchase the paper.

Explanation: Morris Communications acquired the Florida Publishing Company, including 'The Florida Times-Union,' in 1983 for a sum of $200 million.

Explanation: For the majority of the 20th century, the Florida Publishing Company, owner of the newspaper, was jointly held by three significant railroad entities serving Jacksonville.

Explanation: Gannett assumed ownership of The Florida Times-Union following its 2019 merger with Gatehouse Media, the company that had acquired the newspaper in 2017.

Explanation: In its initial years following the 1883 merger, 'The Florida Times-Union' actively promoted the interests of the railroad industry, indicating a partisan alignment.

Explanation: Edward M. Cheney, who purchased the 'Florida Union' in 1867, attempted to establish it as a daily publication but was unsuccessful in sustaining that format.

Explanation: The successor companies to two of the original railroad owners, CSX Transportation and the Florida East Coast Railway, both maintain their headquarters in Jacksonville.

Explanation: The inaugural publication under the combined title 'The Florida Times-Union' occurred on February 4, 1883, following the merger of its predecessor newspapers.

Explanation: Upon its acquisition by Morris Communications in 1983, 'The Florida Times-Union' became the largest and flagship publication within the company's portfolio.

Explanation: In 1873, Walton, Fowle & Co., with C. F. Mawbey taking control, successfully converted the 'Florida Union' to a daily format. However, by 1876, the paper faced decline and reverted to a non-daily status.

Explanation: H. B. McCallum acquired the 'Florida Union' in 1876 and subsequently reinstated it as a daily morning publication.

Explanation: The original three railroad owners were the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, the Florida East Coast Railway, and the Seaboard Air Line Railway. CSX Transportation is a modern successor entity formed from the consolidation of some of these lines.

Explanation: Photographic evidence from 1972 depicts employees utilizing linotype machines, a form of hot metal typesetting, indicating its continued use in the newspaper's production during that period.

Explanation: As of April 1, 2019, The Florida Times-Union relocated its primary offices to the Wells Fargo Center, situated in downtown Jacksonville.

Explanation: A photograph dated 1911 offers a historical perspective on the pressroom operations and printing technology employed by 'The Florida Times-Union' during the early 20th century.

Explanation: In 2018, local printing operations ceased in Jacksonville and were relocated to the printing facilities of 'The Gainesville Sun' and 'The Daytona Beach News-Journal'.

Explanation: On April 1, 2019, 'The Florida Times-Union' moved its main offices to the Wells Fargo Center, located in downtown Jacksonville.

Explanation: A photograph from 1972 illustrates employees operating linotype machines, indicating the newspaper's reliance on hot metal typesetting technology during that period.

Explanation: The citation from the Florida Press Association reported the circulation figure as 27,818, not 49,633.

Explanation: Current information indicates that The Florida Times-Union is owned by Gannett, a major publishing corporation, and its editor is Paul Runnestrand.

Explanation: The official web domain for The Florida Times-Union is listed as jacksonville.com, not floridatimesunion.com.

Explanation: The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for The Florida Times-Union is 0740-2325. The number 49633482 is its OCLC number.

Explanation: The Florida Times-Union is published in a broadsheet format, which is distinct from the smaller tabloid format.

Explanation: The current editor of The Florida Times-Union is identified as Paul Runnestrand.

Explanation: A citation referencing the Florida Press Association indicates that the circulation of The Florida Times-Union was reported as 27,818.

Explanation: The official website designated for The Florida Times-Union is jacksonville.com.

Explanation: The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) assigned to The Florida Times-Union is 0740-2325.

Explanation: The OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) number, a bibliographic identifier, for The Florida Times-Union is 49633482.