Re: Igassik pronouns

Daniel Andreasson wrote:

>Very nice distinctions. I especially like how you combine levels of
>formality with distance (proximate/distal). Have you considered doing
>this for the other 3p formality levels too?
Yes, but I've decided against it. The reason being that I'm considering
doubling the proximate/distal pronouns as demonstratives. So _now_ can mean
's/he, it, this one' or you can say _now kepaet_ 'this man'.

>  The "animal" person, is a
>really strange one, including other people's babies and "freaks". Is
>there a natlang out there that does this?! It's funny and yet at the
>same time very disturbing... :)
The system is a modified form of the pronoun system found in San Lucas
Quiavanis Zapotec, spoken in Oaxaca, Mexico. SLQZ actually has a
formal/familiar distinction in the 2nd person, and it has one more category
in the 3rd person than I have in Igassik. So my system is simpler! :) The
"Animal" category is an almost direct theft. The notes I have on SLQZ state
that Animal is used for animals, children, adults who are not fullfilling
social expectations.

>I really like that quote.
Another quote by Ken Hale that I love (scientists in general should
appreciate this):
"One counterexample is an exception, two is a robust generalization."




===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale
===============================