Re: GROUPLANG: Pronouns
|From:||Pablo Flores <fflores@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 16, 1998, 2:15|
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
>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
>More cases than nouns
>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
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.