|Date:||Sunday, July 28, 2002, 19:21|
an idea i'ld like to throw open to everyone.
bac currently has a 'neuter pronoun' or 'neuter
tat has no meaning, but can be used where a word is
needed for grammatical purposes, but none fits.
TNAWT reygac /naUt "4egatS/
the former king ( reyg is a borrowing and can't
TNAT shelb /nat hElb/
the red one
if only it would rain ( a suffix is needed to make the
imperative, but the third person suffix would imply an
now, i was thinking today about the use in english of
words like 'f uck'. an extreme example being the
phrase 'the f ucking f ucker's f ucking f ucked',
which could, eg, be expleted when a computer crashes
it strikes me that 'f uck''s use is logically rather
like that of a pronounit has a reference but no
meaning ( in this circumstance at least . . . it is
after all also a verb and a noun ).
this got me thinking . . . the use of tat already
gives a word that acts like this : being used for
grammatical function rather than meaning. why not
i could therefore, outside the five cardinal pronouns
( first, second, third, indefinite ( and interrogative
) and neuter ) institute a series of affective
pronouns. these would have no meaning, and only
situational reference, but would come with emotional
baggage. i think i'ld want to extend this system
beyond the english style expletives to encompass
positive as well as negative attitudes.
question : what do people think ? any examples of a
systematised application of this in any existent
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts