Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

3rd person pronouns (was: a question about names)

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Thursday, September 30, 2004, 18:34
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, at 03:30 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 09:12:42PM -0400, Etak wrote: >> Hello! >> Tarnese, my conlang, has no gender at all, which seems >> to work quite well at first glance. I've just realized >> though, that there is no distinction between whether >> something written, or said, in the third person refers to a >> man or a woman. > > Great! Why should there be such a distinction?
Quite so - AFAIK most languages outside of the IE and Semitic groups don't bother.
>> Could you please give me some suggestions as to how I might fix this >> problem? > > I don't see it as a problem at all.
As mark says - What problem?
> Such a distinction only serves a practical purpose when, for example, a > man is talking to a woman and you wish to indicate which of the pair is > speaking; but even languages with gender-specific pronouns, like > English, still have that problem when two men or two women are speaking.
And English, and many other languages, have a problem when we mean either male or female. The tradition in the past has generally been to use the masculine forms "If everybody did his duty...."; but there has been a drift in English from at least the 19th cent. to use 'they' with a singular, epicene meaning "if everybody does their duty...." - but this is still frowned upon by pedants (and is occasionally the source of YAEDT thread on Conlang :) No, having sex distinction in 3rd person pronoun IMO creates as many (possibly more) problems than it solves.
> Klingon has no gender distinctions either. Among natlangs, I'm given to > understand that the Mandarin 3rd-person singular pronoun used to be > genderless, but modern Mandarin (under Western influence, I presume) has > introduced a specifically-female version while continuing to use the > genderless to refer to males - which seems a step backwards > sexual-equity-wise, IMHO.
I agree - but as John has pointed out, this applies to the written language only. In speech it is _ta1_ for both,
> >> P.S. My Latin-English dictionary has a grammar overveiw in >> the back of it, and I noticed yesterday that there are no >> third-person nominative personal pronouns. Why is this? > > Because Classical Latin had no third-person nominative personal > pronouns. :)
It did - but only the reflexive pronoun _se:_ which, of course, cannot by definition have a nominative form.
> The demonstratives served the purpose; you said > "this one" or "that one" instead of "he" or "she". > Of course, Latin has nominal gender, and the demonstratives agree in > number with > the demonstratee, so Latin actually has more ways to disambiguate among > multiple nouns than most languages
Yep - it did indeed.
> (three different demonstratives, each > of which can take any of the three different genders).
Four at least: is, hic, iste & ille. Also _ipse_ could serve that purpose and the relative pronoun was often used to mean "...and he"/ "...and her"/ "...and them" etc. etc. AS you say, more ways to disambiguate than most langs :) =============================================== On Thursday, September 30, 2004, at 02:37 , David Peterson wrote: [snip]
> I believe that Latin had no third person pronoun.  Am I right > on this? 
Only the reflexive pronoun _se_.
> And the third person pronouns of the various Romance > languages were derived from the words for "this" and "that"...?
Yes - mostly from _ille_ - but a few, like Italian _eso_ are from _ipse_.
> A language can do without a third person pronoun.
Indeed it can. Ray =============================================== =============================================== Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight, which is not so much a twilight of the gods as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]


Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>