THEORY: French and polypersonalism

Skrivet gant # 1:

> I'd like to bring another argument: I still think it is generalising to
> think that a such polypersonnal definition is applicable
>
> it is true that when the object is a pronoun, if considering words are
> only
> countable by stress, that pronoun could be compared to a prefix
>
> I love you=/ZtEm/, he eats you=/itma~Z/ etc...
>
> but if the object is a noun or a verb that prefix will not be there
>
> I love my cat=[ZEmo~SA] and not [ZlEmo~SA]
>    (or maybe [ZEm:o~SA] -> I know the [m] sound is differencable of a
> single m but I'm not sure if it is by its lenght or its strenght or
> something)
>
> I eat my vegetables=/Zma~Z.melegym/
>
>
> so I'm not sure: can a desinence disapear when it represent an
> information
> already represented by a noun?
>
> a language saying the sentence "I love her" and "I love my mother"
>
> love-1st.per.-3rd.pers.
> love-1st.per.   my mother
>
>
> Is it possible? the dropping of a desinence to avoid repetition
>
Breton (and I suppose Welsh and Cornish as well)  has something similar

Va mamm a garan : I love my mother
my moter verbal particle love-first personn

Me a gar va mamm  I love my mother

first personn pronoun verbal particle love (no desinence) my mother

Of course Breton verb doesn't aggree with the object

> If so: yes, spoken French could be considered polypersonnal in some cases
>
> If not: no, it can't because the congugation would not be the same
> with or
> without an object
>
>
> Do you have an example of language were it is possible to drop morphemes
> repeating something?
>
>
>
>
> polypersonnal conjugation of the verb to love in French at present time
>
>                           Obj.
>
>   Not a pronoun     Singular                 Plural
>         ||      1      2      3       1        2         3
>         \/
>       1 ZEm    ZmEm*  StEm   ZlEm    ZnuzEm   ZvuzEm    ZezEm
>     S 2 tEm    tymEm  tytEm* tyl:Em  tynuzEm  ---       tylezEm
>       3 jEm    imEm   itEm   il:Em   inuzEm   ivuzEm    jezEm
> Sub.                          isEm*
>
>       1 o~nEm  o~mEm  o~tEm  o~l:Em  o~sEm*   o~vuzEm   o~lezEm
>     P 2 vuzEme vumEme ---    vul:Eme vunuzEme vuvuzEme* vulezEme
>       3 izEm   imEm   itEm   il:Em   inuzEm   ivuzEm    ilezEm
>
>
> I still ask myself if a congugaison can change when the object isn't a
> pronoun but in that case it would
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the subject pronoun could be considered as a prefix most
> of the
> time but not the object morpheme wich appears only in the case that the
> object isn't a pronoun,
>
> and because it goes between the subject and the verb, the subject is
> probably not a prefix neither
>
>
>
>
>
> How would these analysis of the spoken French analyse a sentence like
>
> /SpAlA/(I'm not there)
>
> alone the [S] means the present first person singular of the verb to be
>
> [pA] means negation
>
> [lA] means "there"
>
>
> I'm not sure any one-sound-prefix could contain as much information, a
> linguist analysing it as a new language without knowing any european
> language would probably deduce it is a reduced form of a few words..
>
>
> please give me one of these website where you say you've found these
> polypersonnal analysis of spoken french, I've not envisaged all
> possibilities and I'd like to read those who did
>
> -Max
>