Re: Hangkerimce Grammar I
|From:||Gerald Koenig <jlk@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, March 21, 1999, 19:27|
>Subject: Re: Hangkerimce Grammar I
>> 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 on
>> 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 is
>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 words
>derived from pronouns like HIN/RE~ (hmngrk): selfish person, and PIN/RE~
>(pmngrk): doer, actor.
Your reply has brought to my consciousness what has been bothering me.
Apparently the active/passive distinction and slots are language
universals, so there is no point in arguing aout them, any more than
arguing about the usefulness of the concepts of radiation, black bodies
and electron orbits in physics.
But I realized that to me there is some metaphorical connection between
gender grammar and the active/passive distinction. We have seen a need
to reorganize biological gender grammar in modern language to deal with
certain prejudicial stereotypes. So for me if the one is reformed, the
other will have to be also in an evolved language. Your putting Hankerimce
in an evolutionary context made me think of this. Now for the first time
I see the need to develop my "fuzzy voice" grammar to the fullest. IMHO
binary active/passive grammar is too primitive to deal alone with modern
realities although it will probably exist forever as language given,
fully satisfactory to true fundamentalists.
>-- Carlos Th
> -- Hangkerim proverb
> -- Hangkerim proverb
Could you translate it for me?