Re: Verbal Inflection for Formality

---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
>Quoting Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>:
>>Furthermore, in European languages such as French, the equivalent
>>of "vous" when addressed to just one person -- in other words, formal
>>second person singular rather than second person plural -- requires
>>plural agreement in the verb. "Tu" gets singular agreement, but the
>>formal "vous" gets plural agreement even if it is addressed to just one
>>person.
>
>In German, the formal _Sie_ takes *3rd* person plural agreement, differing
>from the familiar _du_ (sg) and _ihr_ (pl).
>Eg: du bist, ihr seid, Sie sind.
>                                               Andreas
Yes.  German, and ISTR Dutch, have formal-second-person-singular forms that
were formally third-person; as I mentioned in an earlier paragraph of the
post to which Andreas is replying.

As Andreas points out, in German, at least, the replacement was both person
_and_ number; third-person-plural Sie for second-person-singular du.

--------------------

BTW in USMC boot-camp English, the humble first-person form is "this
recruit", which requires third-person-singular agreement.
Does anyone know whether this applies in the bootcamps of any other service
or any other country?
Does anyone know whether some such thing persists after bootcamp in any of
these services?

--------------------

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:29:06 -0400, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
>Eldin Raigmore wrote;
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eldin Raigmore" <eldin_raigmore@...>
>To: <CONLANG@...>
>Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:39 PM
>Subject: Re: Verbal Inflection for Formality
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:52:21 -0400, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
>>"We" is used as if first-person-singular by Popes and Emperors and Kings
>>and Queens in European languages.  Furthermore it gets plural agreement.
>>"We are not amused", Victoria said; not "We am not amused".
>We do that a lot too. It tends to confuse people who don't know us :-)))
Oh, we see! ( :-) )

>>>I'd view things like Usted, Sie, vous, Your Grace/Majesty/etc. as simple
>>>vocab. replacements;
>>So far I think I'd agree with you.
>>>they don't require completely different verbs or verb forms.
>>Here I'd disagree in part.
>
>What I meant was, the verbal forms required are within the normal range;
>you don't have to use a different base or ending.
Ah.  I see (now) what you mean.

You mentioned four ways honorifics could be implemented or four ways they
could be influential; and Chris said he was most interested in the third
way, which involved inflection (and possibly derivation?) of the verb(s).
In particular he said he wasn't as interested in systematic suppletion of
the vocabulary.

I was saying that it is common for the verbs to change their agreement for
what one would probably have otherwise thought of as "grammatical person"
or "grammatical number" or "grammatical voice", to indicate honorifics.  It
is also common for them to change modality -- from realis to irrealis, or
from factual to possible, for example -- and to change illocutionary force,
for example from a command to a question; or, in the case of an honorific
speaker and a humble addresse, from a command to a declarative (either "I
desire that ..." or "he or she (the addressee) will ...").  Apparently they
can also change polarity! tho' I personally know no details of any examples.

>Using a 3d person form simply is a way of distancing (w.r.t. status)
>speaker from Noble Hearer.
>
>The analogue, as I conceive it would be if Eur. languages had a whole
>nother set of vocab. and endings used in the polite mode--
It was my impression that Javanese actually worked that way.  Was that
impression wrong?

>Vous écambrusc tréchi gesartimet 'vous etes tres gentil' (to a nobleman)
>whereas one would have to say say 'vous etes tres gentil' to a superior
>non-noble, and 'tu es tres couaque' to a close friend.
>>>Much the way Indonesian uses titles/offices etc. for politeness or
>>>when dealing with superiors. Then, along with familiar aku 'I', there's
>>>much more common saya, IIRC from a Skt. word for 'slave'.
>
>I just remembered-- there a native word (IIRC) hamba 'slave' that can also
>be used for "I" but my guess is it's quite passé. One of the (wise) reasons
>minority Malay was chosen for Indonesia's national language was precisely
>that it didn't have the complicated and "undemocratic" respect levels of
>majority Javanese. (Plus the fact that all ethnic groups outside Java
>already knew at least some Malay as L2, but zero Javanese)
>>
>>(Thanks.  Indonesian and Javanese were some of the ones I was trying to
>>think of.)
>>
>>And do the speaker-humble forms take third-person verb-agreement when the
>>(humble) speaker is the subject?
>
>Fortunately there isn't a lot of agreement morphology in Indonesian, and
>although I'm not sure, probably not in Javanese either.
>
>In Indon. it only crops up in the so-called passive:
>ACTIVE
>Aku/saya menulis buku itu (meN+tulis is active) I write/wrote that book
>Kamu/Saudara/Anda/Dokter/Bapak/Pak
>Suharto/Pak Profesor(etal.) menulis buku itu
>You write/wrote that book =
>Ia/Ali/Dr./You, resp./Pak
>Suharto etc menulis buku itu ... write/wrote that book
>
>PASSIVE
>Buku itu ditulisnya ~...ditulis Ali ~...ditulis Pak Suharto That book was
>written by him ~Ali ~Mr.Suharto etc......(3d person referent)
>
>BUT:
>a) Buku itu kutulis (fam.) ~...saya tulis (more formal) ...by me
>(You can't say ditulis aku/saya etc.)
>
>b) Buku itu kautulis (fam.) ...was written by "thee"
>.... Saudara/Anda tulis (more formal) ...was written by 'vous'
Thanks very much!
Clearly this is something I will want to understand, though I am afraid I
don't quite, yet.

>Now: I am not sure, since the occasion never arose, whether one would say
>_(1) buku itu ditulis Pak Suharto_ OR (2)buku itu Pak Suharto tulis in
>direct address., but I strongly suspect it's (2), since the rule is "In
>passive, a 1st or 2nd pers. agent goes before the verb."
>
>Maybe Yahya Abdal-Aziz can answer this....? Suppose you're talking to a
>General or Governor, and you want to say: "The problem that (you) have
>mentioned..."  This would require a "passive" construction: would you say
>"So'alnya yang Pak Jendral sebut..." or "So'alnya yang disebut Pak
>Jendral..."  ???Enquiring minds want to know.
>
>>
>> ("the honorific system" includes what gets done to mark some actants as
>> humble, as well as what gets done to exalt other actants.)
>
>Truly.
>>
>> BTW there are languages where part of the honorific system is in the
>> voice;
>> an honorific referent can't ever be a non-subject participant of a clause
>> which has a non-honorific subject.  So if a lot is happening or has
>> happened or is going to happen to a prince, and you're telling someone
>> about it, you use the passive voice a _lot_.
>
>If not passive, at least the special "honorific" voice. That would be
>interesting.
Do you know of any natlang attestations?
(Robert Ryan's dissertation seems like it might say some language(s) uses
its/their "reflexive" voice this way.)
How about any conlang ones?

>> ....
>>Of course you know better than I, but check again and see whether when one
>>refers to oneself as "the sole of the foot" one's actions don't take
>>third-person agreement.
>
>I simply don't know enough Jav. to say; for Malay/Indo. one would have to
>scour written works, esp. old ones, to see how it's handled.
So, then, if I'd written this off-list, I could have pretended I _do_ know?
:-)
But I don't.

>>>Similarly the various honorific terms in Kash, properly used when dealing
>>>with nobles and/or officialdom.
>
>I see, in the one ex. cited in the syntax, that one uses 3d person forms in
>such cases: aka simbi ya/melo... (lit. Q Mr/Sir 3s/want) 'would you like
>to...?' (as with Span. Vd.)  This is about like (stereotyped) British
>schoolboy over-use of "Sir" (to a school-master) in such things as: 'Will
>Sir tell us when the test is?"
Good example!  Thanks.

-----
eldin

Replies