Re: Is it necessary to distinguish inclusiveness in possessivemarkers?
|From:||Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 30, 2004, 3:07|
Nik Taylor wrote:
>>çkarh [Ckax:] = you and I (dual)
>>klarä [klax9] = you and I (dual intimate)
> Interesting. WHat's the distinction between çkarh and klarä? Is klarä
> used in cases where the addressee is particularly close to the speaker,
> as in speaking to a family member or lover?
Yes! The intimate pronoun are used only between lovers. This is a totally
useless feature, but so romantic... ;-)
>>raith [xait_h] = you all (plural adressee)
>>sari [saxi] = you all (singular adressee)
> What's the distinction between these two? Is the second used when
> speaking to one person, but when referring to a group that he belongs
> to? As in, for example, asking a clerk at a store if they have a given
> item? That is, speaking to one person, but referring to the store.
Yes, clever one! Groups are con-culturally very important so "sari" is the
way to talk to someone about his group activity without being too personal.
It may be considered as a formal "you". And the clerk of a store is good
example. "raith" is the informal plural "you" used to speak to a group of
person, like for example a spokeman in front of a crowd. And this spokeman
will use the formal "I", "çaki" (we exclusive), in order not to be too
personal when talking about his own group.
A con-language without con-culture is like a keyboard without keys.
Something is definitively missing... :-D