Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns
|From:||Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 16, 1998, 8:01|
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
> 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)?
> Well, we seem to have set on
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