Re: Kamakawi Comments & Kinship

> No.  That particular example, no, because there are no articles for
> subjects; they're not used.  Specifically because it's redundant.
> Also, the fact that the noun itself is also redundant is what made me
> want to drop it in the first place, and now I think I am going to do
> that.  I'm going to test all cases, though, to see if there are some
> situations where you'll want to write the sujbect, even if it's the
> same.
I can't imagine that you would.  I, at least, encourage you to drop
subjects--pro dropping is fun, and I find it nearly impossible to learn a
foreign language that *doesn't* pro-drop.  (This baffles my friend who
knows only German and English.  He insists that because English doesn't
pro-drop, I should be able to get the hang of German, but the fact of the
matter is that as soon as I leave my native language, I want to assume
pro-drop and hate to go back.)

> Oh, and that Thai sample was quite interesting.  One thing I was
> wondering (since, even though I'm learning Hawaiian, I don't know native
> speakers), how productive are all the different kinship terms?
> Meaning, how often would people who speak Thai use them?  Would they
> always without exception use the most specific term possible, or is it
> breaking down, and does that kind of thing happen in languages with
> large kinship systems?  I've always wondered about that.
Well, I can't say exactly, but the native speakers I've met do seem to
remember all or nearly all of the words, at least in the basic set that I
gave.  Some of them are shortened--for example, the words for "older
sibling" are all 'phii' + a word meaning 'boy' or 'girl,' and in casual
speech these can be reduced to just plain 'phii.'  Similar for the other
compound forms.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton