Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns
|From:||Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 16, 1998, 5:43|
Nik Taylor wrote:
> >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.
> It was just an idea... grammaticalize something that English does
> by idiomatical means, i. e. "you all" vs. "you people". But the
> no-natlang-has-that is no excuse! We're creating something here! :-)
Indonesian : kamu = you; anda = y'all/vous/Ud
It's regarded plural, not inclusive. Inclusive would be : you-me, me-him, you-him.
> Let's forget it if you (I mean you all :) prefer.
> >If we want a really interesting (and complicated) system, how's about
> >singular/dual/paucal/plural (or singular/dual/trial/plural) for at least
> >1st and 2nd persons
> Why not 3rd persons too? I'd be fine with those numbers... Which
> reminds me we've not discussed THAT either.
>this is good to make modifiers in quantity and quality too : rich = have a lot of
richness, barren = can grow no/few, etc
> >Gender in 1st and 2nd person
> (Assuming "gender" includes "sex") I'd rather not, tho it wouldn't
> hurt me to use it.
>I wonder whether gays would like it.
> >Regular (or nearly regular) declinsion
> Yes, please.
> >More cases than nouns
> Such as?
> >Polite/Informal (perhaps more than two distinctions) in *all* persons,
> > or at least 1st and 2nd.
> > For example, 3rd person polite would express respect towards the
> > person referred to
>Japanese uses different verbs and affixes on nouns; Tibetan uses different words
> 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. :-)
> Shouldn't we mark politeness on verbs, too (at least in very formal
> or pompous speech)?
> >Any other ideas?
> This fountain's gone dry.
> >> 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.
> Gender should indeed be compulsory on all nominal forms.
> (Not necessarily in predicates; Carlos proposed compulsory
> aspect, not tense, and I agreed.)
> >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.
> Well, we seem to have set on
> Mathias told us about the 10 "universal" cases. I personally think we
> can make do with the ones we have so far, which are already not a few.
>I agree. I withdraw my 'absolutive', 'agent' and causative' cases. I suggest you
change the name of 'undergoer' into 'absolutive', which seems to be the correct
lingics description for this case, and one among the next 'modifier' or
'determinant' cases into 'attributive'. Now we could realize without changing
the system (only re-naming it) that we're halfway of ergative/absolutive
(=Basque, Sumerian) and agent/patient/attribute (=some Amerindian and
New-Guinean languages) systems. Attributive is '-s' in = hi-s parent, hi-s
redness, hi-s arm, hi-s home, etc.
The '10 cases' don't count in lative, locative and situative cases. I suggest we
use suspensive verbs for the latter : I let him go to the house thru woods =
him woods go-thru-susp house go-to
By the way, what are the cases of 'I', 'him', 'woods' and 'house' ? How structure
'I let him raise the hand' ?
> --Pablo Flores
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=17406
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/