Re: "Register" a grammatical term

ROGER MILLS wrote:
> BP Jonsson wrote:
> ...The problem I have is a
>> very practical one: under one interpretation of
>> one of the many sketches of the Quenya pronominal
>> system which Tolkien left behind the pronouns make
>> the following distinctions, cutting across the
>> three numbers singular, plural and dual:
>>
>> | Person
>> | 1.    inclusive      'we and you'
>> | 1.    exclusive      'we but not you'
>> | 2.    familiar       'thou, you'
>> | 2.    polite         'sir(s), ma'am'
>> | 2.    reverent       'My Lord(s)/Lady(-ies)'
>> |                       (when talking to him/her/them)
>> | 3.    animate        's/he'
>> | 3.    reverent       'my lord(s)/lady(-ies)'
>> |                       (when talking about them)
>> | 3.    inanimate      'it'
>> | 3.    impersonal      '(it)'
>> |       reflexive      '-self'
[snip]
>
> I've been meaning to say:  I think "style(s)" and/or "level(s)" have
> sometimes been used.
Maybe - but "style" does have a very wide range of other meanings. I
find in Trask that "level" is used as a linguistic term both in
derivational theory of grammar and non-derivational theories. The
definitions mention things like D-structure, S-Structure & Logical Form
(derivational theory), and e-structures and f-structures
(non-derivational theories). It's all a long way from what BPJ has in mind.

I find that SIL calls the feature BPJ refers to as "social deixis", cf:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSocialDeixis.htm

Crystal also uses the term "social deixis", though it doesn't appear in
Trask's dictionary.
-----------------------------------

Jim Henry wrote:
[snip]
 > .......  It was in a context, I think, where
 > he was arguing against revival of the obsolete-almost-as-soon-as-
 > the-language-was-born intimate pronoun "ci".

It came across it in a book I came across in 1949 or thereabouts. I have
no idea whether any Esperantists still used it or not. But in text books
it seems to lived on for some time, if not in actual use.

 > (He argues, IIRC,
 > that Zamenhof put the intimate pronoun in to satisfy certain speakers
 > of languages with formal/informal pronouns who would complain
 > if it were absent, but deliberately gave it an unpleasant sound
 > so no one would actually us it for very long.)

What's unpleasant about _ci_ [tsi]? To me it sounds no more or less
unpleasant than _vi_ or any of the other personal pronouns.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply