Re: Question about anaphora

En réponse à Dirk Elzinga :

>Harald:
>
>Here's an idea which I took from Numic languages (Shoshoni, Paiute,
>etc). Instead of gender, third person pronouns can be differentiated by
>relative distance; referents which are closer (proximal) have different
>pronouns than those which are further away (distal). This relative
>distance can be metaphorical as well; referents which are mentioned
>first or which are agents can be referred to with proximal pronoun
>forms, while referents which are mentioned later or which are lower in
>the agency hierarchy can be referred to with distal pronoun forms.
Funny enough, I have decided that instead of an inclusive/exclusive
distinction in Maggel personal pronouns, I'd have rather a proximacy
distinction. In Maggel personal and demonstrative pronouns are a single
category. They distinguish gender, number, person, edible/non-edible, but
also distance, with up to four distinctions: general, close, far above, far
below. The distance distinction can be of course metaphorical, and by using
close, far above and far below pronouns, can distinguish up to three
different referents ("general" is different by its not being opposed to the
other possibilities. It has a more general use not unlike Latin IS). Add to
that the edible/inedible distinction and gender, and you can have quite a
few referents without ambiguity (or at least you wish, but since those
distinctions are rather fluid and context-dependent, and can be used in
very metaphorical ways, you actually get rid of some ambiguity by adding
some other ambiguity ;))) ).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.