Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns

Pablo Flores wrote:
> But the
> no-natlang-has-that is no excuse! We're creating something here! :-)
Okay, I'll accept that.  It's just that I prefer naturalistic, but,
whatever the group prefers.

> (Assuming "gender" includes "sex") I'd rather not, tho it wouldn't
> hurt me to use it.
I just thought it might be interesting.  I-mascline saw you-masculine,
for instance.  If you prefer, we could have an epicene form, with the
gendered forms as alternates, perhaps used in intimate settings?

> Such as?
How about an instrumental in the third person.  Dative would be useful
as well.

> I agree with polite/informal for all persons, tho I don't quite get
> what it would mean in 1st person (respect for myself?) -- maybe it'd
> mean you consider yourself a great respectable person. :-)
We could have like in Japanese, a "plain" 1st person pronouns, and
various levels of humbleness.

> Shouldn't we mark politeness on verbs, too (at least in very formal
> or pompous speech)?
Good idea!

> Well, we seem to have set on
>
> agent
> patient
> undergoer
> absolutive
> causative
> modifier
> determinant
> predicate
These are the cases?  I don't really like them that much.  Very odd.  I
must've missed that discussion, but what's the difference between
"undergoer" and "patient"?  And what's absolutive if you already have
patient?  Subject of an intransitive verb?

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor