Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Friday, October 16, 1998, 8:12
At 12:59 15/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Pablo Flores wrote: > >> but at least it should >> have an inclusive/exclusive distinction for 1st and 2nd >> person plural. > >I'll go for inclusive/exclusive in 1st person, but not 2nd person. I >don't know of any natlangs with that distinction in 2nd person.
I read about natlangs that do that distinction for the second person. I don't remember what they was however (where's my damn book?!). So the first proposal fits very well I think.
> >If we want a really interesting (and complicated) system, how's about >this: >singular/dual/paucal/plural (or singular/dual/trial/plural) for at least
I think we don't have to make such a difference. I also think that if we choose not to have a mandatory plural for nouns, plural shoudn't be mandatory for 3rd person pronouns.
>1st and 2nd persons >Gender in 1st and 2nd person
I think gender could be used for every pronoun, but not mandatory (add details because you want, not because you're obliged to).
>Regular (or nearly regular) declinsion >More cases than nouns
Why? Nouns have enough cases, if I remember well.
>Polite/Informal (perhaps more than two distinctions) in *all* persons,
Why not making something different and marking persons when informal (and letting them as they are when polite). I don't think I expressed myself well. I want to say that the basic form should be considered as polite, and if you want to be friendly, you add something, a suffix or a prefix, I don't know (like for instance the -cxj- and -nj- of Esperanto or the -sin suffix of Moten).
> or at least 1st and 2nd. > For example, 3rd person polite would express respect towards the > person referred to > >Any other ideas?
No, I am not very good at making personal pronouns systems.
> >> And of course, the proximate/obviative distinction in the >> third person; OR the three-step deixis marker I proposed >> in my previous post. > >Either one would fly with me. Gender should be included, tho. > >So, if we have proximate/obviate in the third person (4 persons, if you >will), 4 numbers, 2 levels of politeness, and inclusive/exclusive in 1st >person, 10 cases (is that the consensus?), and, say, 4 genders, then >we'd have 1560 pronouns - of course, these would be formed regularly, so >no need to memorize hundreds of pronouns. > >-- >"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father >was hanged." - Irish proverb > >ICQ: 18656696 >AOL: NikTailor > >
Christophe Grandsire |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G. "R=E9sister ou servir" homepage: