Re: About persons

On Tue, 22 May 2001, The Gray Wizard wrote:

> > From: John Cowan
> >
> > There is a natlang, the name of which I forget, which has a
> > very neat scheme of pronouns:
> >
> >                           singular    dual                plural
> > speaker and listener     ---         thou and I          we (inclusive)
> > speaker, not listener    I           he/she/it and I     we (exclusive)
> > listener, not speaker    thou        he/she/it and thou  you
> > neither one              he/she/it   they two            they
>
> I love it.  Does anyone know what natlang this is?
Shoshoni (1 is speaker, 2 is listener, and 3 is neither):

           sg      du        pl

    1+2   ----    taweh    tammen
    1+3    ne     neweh    nemmen
      2    en     meweh    memmen
      3  suten   suteweh   suteen

The third person pronouns are actually demonstratives (there's a
boatload of demonstratives in Shoshoni marking proximity and
visibility). The original Uto-Aztecan third person pronouns
survive in Shoshoni as reflexives: pen, peweh, pemmen.

It's pretty obvious from the pronoun chart that there's been
some innovation going on in Shoshoni; the forms are just too
regular. Proto-Uto-Aztecan had neither an inclusive/exclusive
distinction, nor a dual number. However, all of the Numic
languages have both, though none as fully fleshed out as
Shoshoni. Chemehuevi (a variety of Southern Paiute) has the
following system:

               sg      du        pl

    1+2       ----    tami      tawe
    1+3        nee         nemi

      2        emi         memi

      3anim    iNa         ime       here
               maNa        mame      visible
               uNa         ume       invisible

      3inan        ice/ika/i-        here
                  mare/maka/ma-      visible
                   ure/uka/u-        invisible

What I find interesting about the Chemehuevi/Southern Paiute
system is that the number disinctions gradually disappear
according to an animacy/empathy hierarchy; there's a dual/plural
contrast only for inclusive first person, and inanimate third
person makes no number contrasts at all.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga                          dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu

"The strong craving for a simple formula
has been the undoing of linguists."               - Edward Sapir

Reply