Re: Hangkerimce Grammar I

Gerald Koenig wrote:

> Hi, Carlos,
> A very neat set of pronouns. A question that has been bothering me for
> some time, not just with your set, is: Why do we put so much emphasis o=
n
> the agent/patient grammar? Of course I have made one too, but it was a
> sort of reaction to the perceived need. Myself, I don't think of
> relations as agent/patient with any real sense of accuracy. Why do the
> Hankerim need this distinction so frequently that it is built into the
> grammmar at such a fundamental level? No criticism intended, just a
> sense of missing something that the others on this list seem to get.
Hangkerimce is an evolved language (and I would like to sketch Medieval, =
Old
and Proto-Hangkerimce then).  The way most grammar structures are built i=
s
as posted: fixed structures with empty slots the relationships are filled
in: agent, patient, predicate and topic (which declines as pacient when
pronouns are used).

Those slots are fixed, most of the times, because is the way they reflect
the relationship.  About personal pronouns (just first and second person)=
 it
has been historically important, and it seems it still is, marking if one=
 is
active (causing) or pasive (suffering) a predicate.  This is noted in wor=
ds
derived from pronouns like HIN/RE~ (h=EDngr=EB): selfish person, and PIN/=
RE~
(p=EDngr=EB): doer, actor.

> Truly,
> Jerry.
-- Carlos Th

Luh=EDz=F9langk=FBr=EB puh=EDz=F9langy=EFm=EAr=EB
Luh=EDz=F9langk=FBr=EB puh=E9v=F9lay=EFm=EAyih=EDz=F9
    -- Hangkerim proverb

Vec=FBr=EBrangk=FBr=EB
    -- Hangkerim proverb