Re: elv ned'm concurrent pronoun systems
|From:||Joe Mondello <rugpretzel@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 9, 1999, 4:34|
> Ditto ditto ditto... I find this system fascinating, Joe, and want you t=o
> elucidate it. What would make such a language change the pronouns
> to affect the verb? Do you have another system of pronouns to
> reflect, say, delight? And like Pablo, I'm curious how you mark
> subjects that aren't pronouns? It seems immensely original but
> ultimately unworkable and cumbersome. But I'm drawn to it.
> It's as though the speaker (or doer) has to change personalities to exp=ress
> delight, violence, or neutrality instead of familiarity or formality,
> which it vaguely echoes.
>An important thing to keep in mind is that essentially the same group of
sounds, a "word" when used with pronoun system 1 and pronouns system 2,
essentially become homonyms with (usually) no intentional connection in
meaning. As for origins, I was thinking perhaps ned'm was formed by the c=
of two languages. While language 1 was the indigenous language and its
pronouns have become the pronouns in system 1, The system 2 pronouns and t=
subsequent meanings that they indicate in verbs come from a different
language. I was thinking that this language had its nominative pronouns f=
to the beginnings of its verbs. When words were introduced to language 1,=
of two things happened. If a word wasn't easily confused with any existin=
word, it was absorbed into the language as is, using pronoun system 1 only=
If the word from langauge 2 sounded like a verb or other type of word from
language 1, it retained its language 2 pronoun. Thus the "words" that hav=
two meanings and use two pronoun systems are actually a sort of homonym.
There are some homonymous[?] verbs which don't use two pronoun systems, bu=
their meanings are very obvious from context (and i tend to doubt they wer=
result of friction between the two languages). as for pronouns to indica=
delight, etc., its not the pronouns indicating anything about the verb exc=
its pedigree (except for words coined into the system) and which meaning i=
taking in a situation. I suppose I made a mistake of using loy (1-to like=
2-to molest) as an example because it could easily indicate that there is
necessarily to be a link between a word's two meanings. The most useful (=
thats's possible) implementation of the two pronoun systems is when the tw=
meanings of a word take similar sorts of objects. Here is a better exampl=
roo'al: 1- to put in order, collate. 2- to paint, cover with a liquid tha=
meant to remain on the surface of something
d'peng lau renggey em roo'al gebikengich tsipeng.
FUT-she expectation it-ACC you-1 collate those-paper-her-PLU towards-her.
She'll expect you to collate those papers of hers for her.
pengka loo renggey goo roo'al gebrstengich tsipeng
she-PAST want it-ACC you-2 paint those-notebook-cover-her-PLU towards-her
She wanted you to paint her notebook covers for her.
When the subject isn't a pronoun there is left-shifting and the pronoun is
added after the subject itself. when there is an unspecific subject (as i=
pseudopassive forms) the pronoun =F3 (someone, often translated as "they" =
English) is used. system 2 pronouns are for all intents and purposes
Roger dey tsekuv roo'al gebikoolich v ilee
Roger, 3s do-PERFECTIVE paint those-water-color-paper-PLU is lovely.
Roger has painted lovely scenes (on these pieces of watercolor paper)
Whether or not this system will add to or detract from my language I am no=
yet sure. I will continue to work with the system, taking into account th=
very interesting questions and comments I have been given here.
>It seems immensely original but ultimately unworkable and cumbersomeI think that it seems that way because of how you are interpreting my mean=
perhaps your perception will weaken (or intensify) upon reading this. Tha=
for the feedback