John Cowan wrote:
>Lojban grammaticizes number (of course it has words for numbers, and can
>use them to do the work that grammatical number does in other languages)
>only in the personal pronouns, and then only by suppletion. Does
>suppletion count as an "allomorph of plural" when it is the only form?
I think Lojban falls within the spirit of this universal, since the singular
and plural forms are not identical.
>The personal pronouns (which are caseless, but glossed here as nominatives)
are:
>
> mi I
> do you (sg. or pl.) but not other(s)
> mi'o we: you and I but not other(s)
> mi'a we: I and other(s) but not you
> ma'a we: I and you and other(s)
> do'o you and other(s)
>
>While these have obvious similarities, they are not analyzable into
morphemes.
do'o surprised me. Based on the pattern, I was expecting do'a since the other
two with "others" included end that way.
===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM: Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
-- Kenneth Hale
===============================