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
>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
> 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.
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
"R=E9sister ou servir"
>> 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