Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns

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! :-)

Let's forget it if you (I mean you all :) prefer.

>
>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
>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.

>Gender in 1st and 2nd person
(Assuming "gender" includes "sex") I'd rather not, tho it wouldn't
hurt me to use 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
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

agent
patient
undergoer
absolutive
causative
modifier
determinant
predicate

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.


--Pablo Flores