Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Creating A Prononominal System

Expand Messages
  • Robert Marshall Murphy
    There s logophoricity: when different pronouns clarify things in subordinate clauses (what English does with reflexive pronouns)… Certain European language
    Message 1 of 29 , Mar 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      There's logophoricity: when different pronouns clarify things in subordinate clauses (what English does with reflexive pronouns)…

      Certain European language have the so-called Zero Person.

      The Obviative is called the Fourth Person.

      Robert Murphy


      On Mar 28, 2013, at 1:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:

      > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
      > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
      > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections of
      > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is in
      > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • yuri
      ... My conlang, KlaXa (or Klakha) has the basic I, you(s), [s]he, we, you(pl), and they. The first person plural (we) has two forms: inclusive (we including
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 28 March 2013 19:39, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews wrote:
        > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
        > four-person systems, so what else is possible?

        My conlang, KlaXa (or Klakha) has the basic I, you(s), [s]he, we,
        you(pl), and they.

        The first person plural (we) has two forms: inclusive (we including
        you the hearer) and exclusive (us and not you).
        The third person has three forms: this person here, that person there,
        and some hypothetical person (similar to but not exactly like "one" in
        English).

        There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
        be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
        suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
        distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
        the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).

        I don't know the grammatical/linguistic terms for all these things,
        but that doesn't matter as I'm coining my own grammatical terms in
        KlaXa.

        Anyway, Nicole, there are many paths you can take. What would you like
        your confolk to be able to express with pronouns? Make what works for
        them.

        Yuri
      • Daniel Burgener
        On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
          goldyemoran@...> wrote:

          > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
          > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
          > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
          > of
          > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
          > in
          > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
          >

          I asked a similar question on the list about pronouns a few months back and
          got some very helpful answers which you might be interested in, regarding
          some other options for pronouns. The first message is here:

          http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CONLANG;d1f9d3bd.1209A

          I don't know how well your screenreader will handle the archives. Let me
          know if you have problems and I'll copy the messages into a text file and
          send it to you off-list so you can read it.

          -Daniel
        • Matthew Turnbull
          In my experience pronouns will tend to make culturally relevant distinctions, make as many or as few as you like, but keep in mind that pronouns that don t get
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            In my experience pronouns will tend to make culturally relevant
            distinctions, make as many or as few as you like, but keep in mind that
            pronouns that don't get used wouldn't last.
            The only ''unconventional'' pronoun system I've ever made includes a
            systemic sexuality distinction, which determines certain marriage and
            cultural customs, basically the same way sex specific pronouns work in
            English (he vs she). There is a sexuality indeterminate pronoun also.
          • Adam Walker
            Gravgaln pronouns don t distinguish sex (no he/she type distinctions) since the sexes live apart most of their lives. Instead, Gravgaln pronouns distinguish
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Gravgaln pronouns don't distinguish sex (no he/she type distinctions) since
              the sexes live apart most of their lives. Instead, Gravgaln pronouns
              distinguish caste, which is very important in their culture. That means
              there is one word for I used by first-castes, a different word for I used
              by second-castes, another word for I used by third-castes and yet another
              word for I used by out-castes. The same is true for You and He/She and for
              the plurals, but the plurals add some forms for mixed groups
              (first-and-second, second-and-third, if an out-caste is included in a group
              you default to we and you-out-caste or you and it, etc.).

              Adam

              On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
              goldyemoran@...> wrote:

              > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
              > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
              > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
              > of
              > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
              > in
              > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • George Marques de Jesus
              I don t know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I have a presential we , in addition to the inclusive and exclusive variations. If
              Message 6 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
                have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
                variations.

                If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
                both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
                business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
                "exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
                means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.

                ::. George Marques .::
                ::. http://georgemarques.com.br .::
              • Matthew Turnbull
                There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is used by and
                Message 7 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
                  formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
                  used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
                  but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
                  you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
                  either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
                  marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
                  but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
                  language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
                  but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
                  He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
                  when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
                  seriously so.


                  On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                  goldyemoran@...> wrote:

                  > Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
                  > message came through.
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                  > Behalf Of Daniel Burgener
                  > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:54 AM
                  > To: CONLANG@...
                  > Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
                  >
                  > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                  > goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                  > > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
                  > > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
                  > > of
                  > > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
                  > > in
                  > > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
                  > >
                  >
                  > I asked a similar question on the list about pronouns a few months back and
                  > got some very helpful answers which you might be interested in, regarding
                  > some other options for pronouns. The first message is here:
                  >
                  > http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CONLANG;d1f9d3bd.1209A
                  >
                  > I don't know how well your screenreader will handle the archives. Let me
                  > know if you have problems and I'll copy the messages into a text file and
                  > send it to you off-list so you can read it.
                  >
                  > -Daniel
                  >
                • Alex Fink
                  Double- (no, triple-)header. ... I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of these categories are closerly related than others,
                  Message 8 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Double- (no, triple-)header.

                    On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:02:33 -0300, George Marques de Jesus <georgemjesus@...> wrote:

                    >I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
                    >have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
                    >variations.
                    >
                    >If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
                    >both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
                    >business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
                    >"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
                    >means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.

                    I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of these categories are closerly related than others, e.g.?

                    Cued by your latter example alone, a breakdown ran through my mind where you could segment the semantics as follows, which would then be a nice decomposition to reflect in morphology. Your first example belies it for Mihousapeja, though.

                    (1) is the speaker in the group?
                    (2) is/are the listener(s) in the group?
                    (3) is the group extended to other people which the people present represent, in the associative plural style?
                    1 2 3
                    Y Y Y inclusive we
                    Y Y N presential we
                    Y N Y exclusive we
                    Y N N 1st singular
                    N Y Y much like 2nd plural, in practice?
                    N Y N much like 2nd singular?
                    N N Y if this has any meaning, then I suppose 3rd person

                    On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:21:21 +1300, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:

                    >There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
                    >be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
                    >suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
                    >distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
                    >the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).

                    I don't remember if Klaχa (can I spell it that way?) is a posteriori, so I'm at a loss for how to guess...

                    Anyway, I've been meaning to reply to Benct's post of some weeks ago on non-obligatory morphology, but this, optional sex marking, is one of these examples of it that seems to be particularly exampled in conlangs but not in natlangs. And it feels a bit to me like conlangers not really being fully ready to renounce the 3rd person sex distinction in pronouns they're used to from SAE (or wherever), though they like the notion of doing so.

                    If a natlang which actually had only one third person pronoun suddenly fell upon a situation where it wants to distinguish a male and a female referent, there's one natural solution that the resources of the language probably provide already: don't use pronouns, but say "the man" and "the woman"! Or, indeed, "the doctor.MASC" and "the doctor.FEM", or whatever the case may be, if you already have those nominal derivational operations. Having the operation spread to pronouns instead is odd; AFAIK, pronouns really don't like to allow derivational operations.

                    Beyond that, if this business of marking both genders nonzero (as opposed to the 'morphology is not optional' approach letting zero-marking serve for one of them) is in the name of like social progressiveness... well, good, but having gender marking at all isn't very socially progressive anyway, at least if there are a finite number of categories (see for instance http://vimeo.com/61172068).

                    In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens with e.g. English "he" / "she" / singular "they". At present, even though singular "they" is ungendered, it's basically forbidden from _specific_ reference, or at least from uses where the sex of the referent is clear to the listener. But Language Log for instance loves reporting on usages suggesting that the boundary may be slipping.

                    And then this arrived as I was writing:

                    On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Matthew Turnbull <ave.jor@...> wrote:

                    >There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
                    >formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
                    >used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
                    >but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
                    >you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
                    >either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
                    >marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
                    >but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
                    >language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
                    >but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
                    >He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
                    >when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
                    >seriously so.

                    This is a nice take on the idea that avoids the non-obligatory morphology worry: it's not gay vs. straight vs. unspecified, it's gay vs. straight vs. a societal third category which is laden with its own meaning, in this case childish noncommittiveness or whatever it was. I like.

                    Alex
                  • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                    That s interesting. It sounds like there s room to work with. ... From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU] On Behalf Of Adam Walker
                    Message 9 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      That's interesting. It sounds like there's room to work with.

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                      Behalf Of Adam Walker
                      Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:56 AM
                      To: CONLANG@...
                      Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                      Gravgaln pronouns don't distinguish sex (no he/she type distinctions) since
                      the sexes live apart most of their lives. Instead, Gravgaln pronouns
                      distinguish caste, which is very important in their culture. That means
                      there is one word for I used by first-castes, a different word for I used
                      by second-castes, another word for I used by third-castes and yet another
                      word for I used by out-castes. The same is true for You and He/She and for
                      the plurals, but the plurals add some forms for mixed groups
                      (first-and-second, second-and-third, if an out-caste is included in a group
                      you default to we and you-out-caste or you and it, etc.).

                      Adam

                      On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                      goldyemoran@...> wrote:

                      > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                      > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
                      > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
                      > of
                      > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
                      > in
                      > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                      A sexuality pronoun? How does that work? I there one for merital status? ... From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU] On Behalf Of
                      Message 10 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        A sexuality pronoun? How does that work?

                        I there one for merital status?

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                        Behalf Of Matthew Turnbull
                        Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:59 AM
                        To: CONLANG@...
                        Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                        In my experience pronouns will tend to make culturally relevant
                        distinctions, make as many or as few as you like, but keep in mind that
                        pronouns that don't get used wouldn't last.
                        The only ''unconventional'' pronoun system I've ever made includes a
                        systemic sexuality distinction, which determines certain marriage and
                        cultural customs, basically the same way sex specific pronouns work in
                        English (he vs she). There is a sexuality indeterminate pronoun also.
                      • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                        Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your message came through. ... From: Constructed Languages List
                        Message 11 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
                          message came through.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                          Behalf Of Daniel Burgener
                          Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:54 AM
                          To: CONLANG@...
                          Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                          On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                          goldyemoran@...> wrote:

                          > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                          > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
                          > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
                          > of
                          > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
                          > in
                          > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
                          >

                          I asked a similar question on the list about pronouns a few months back and
                          got some very helpful answers which you might be interested in, regarding
                          some other options for pronouns. The first message is here:

                          http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CONLANG;d1f9d3bd.1209A

                          I don't know how well your screenreader will handle the archives. Let me
                          know if you have problems and I'll copy the messages into a text file and
                          send it to you off-list so you can read it.

                          -Daniel
                        • Daniel Burgener
                          On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                          Message 12 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                            goldyemoran@...> wrote:

                            > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that distinguish
                            > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
                            >

                            In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for gossiping
                            about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all nouns,
                            including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
                            "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a gender
                            and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
                            married and female for example).

                            On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                            goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                            > Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
                            > message came through.

                            Okay, I'll get that for you now.

                            -Daniel
                          • Patrick Dunn
                            On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener ... Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. I just found a chair.MAR at the thriftstore. --
                            Message 13 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener
                              <burgener.daniel@...>wrote:

                              > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                              > goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that
                              > distinguish
                              > > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
                              > >
                              >
                              > In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for gossiping
                              > about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all nouns,
                              > including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
                              > "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a gender
                              > and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
                              > married and female for example).
                              >

                              Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. "I just found a
                              chair.MAR at the thriftstore."



                              --
                              Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
                              order from Finishing Line
                              Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
                              and
                              Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
                            • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                              I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that distinguish merital status. I m not sure how those would work. ... From: Constructed Languages
                              Message 14 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that distinguish merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Alex Fink
                                Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:25 AM
                                To: CONLANG@...
                                Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                                Double- (no, triple-)header.

                                On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:02:33 -0300, George Marques de Jesus <georgemjesus@...> wrote:

                                >I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
                                >have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
                                >variations.
                                >
                                >If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
                                >both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
                                >business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
                                >"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
                                >means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.

                                I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of these categories are closerly related than others, e.g.?

                                Cued by your latter example alone, a breakdown ran through my mind where you could segment the semantics as follows, which would then be a nice decomposition to reflect in morphology. Your first example belies it for Mihousapeja, though.

                                (1) is the speaker in the group?
                                (2) is/are the listener(s) in the group?
                                (3) is the group extended to other people which the people present represent, in the associative plural style?
                                1 2 3
                                Y Y Y inclusive we
                                Y Y N presential we
                                Y N Y exclusive we
                                Y N N 1st singular
                                N Y Y much like 2nd plural, in practice?
                                N Y N much like 2nd singular?
                                N N Y if this has any meaning, then I suppose 3rd person

                                On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:21:21 +1300, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:

                                >There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
                                >be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
                                >suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
                                >distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
                                >the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).

                                I don't remember if Klaχa (can I spell it that way?) is a posteriori, so I'm at a loss for how to guess...

                                Anyway, I've been meaning to reply to Benct's post of some weeks ago on non-obligatory morphology, but this, optional sex marking, is one of these examples of it that seems to be particularly exampled in conlangs but not in natlangs. And it feels a bit to me like conlangers not really being fully ready to renounce the 3rd person sex distinction in pronouns they're used to from SAE (or wherever), though they like the notion of doing so.

                                If a natlang which actually had only one third person pronoun suddenly fell upon a situation where it wants to distinguish a male and a female referent, there's one natural solution that the resources of the language probably provide already: don't use pronouns, but say "the man" and "the woman"! Or, indeed, "the doctor.MASC" and "the doctor.FEM", or whatever the case may be, if you already have those nominal derivational operations. Having the operation spread to pronouns instead is odd; AFAIK, pronouns really don't like to allow derivational operations.

                                Beyond that, if this business of marking both genders nonzero (as opposed to the 'morphology is not optional' approach letting zero-marking serve for one of them) is in the name of like social progressiveness... well, good, but having gender marking at all isn't very socially progressive anyway, at least if there are a finite number of categories (see for instance http://vimeo.com/61172068).

                                In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens with e.g. English "he" / "she" / singular "they". At present, even though singular "they" is ungendered, it's basically forbidden from _specific_ reference, or at least from uses where the sex of the referent is clear to the listener. But Language Log for instance loves reporting on usages suggesting that the boundary may be slipping.

                                And then this arrived as I was writing:

                                On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Matthew Turnbull <ave.jor@...> wrote:

                                >There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
                                >formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
                                >used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
                                >but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
                                >you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
                                >either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
                                >marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
                                >but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
                                >language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
                                >but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
                                >He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
                                >when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
                                >seriously so.

                                This is a nice take on the idea that avoids the non-obligatory morphology worry: it's not gay vs. straight vs. unspecified, it's gay vs. straight vs. a societal third category which is laden with its own meaning, in this case childish noncommittiveness or whatever it was. I like.

                                Alex
                              • C. Brickner
                                ... Senjecas has the 4th person pronoun. The 3rd person pronoun uses the demonstrative adjective ‘nus’, that. Gender is not marked on the pronoun. The
                                Message 15 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  On 28 March 2013 19:39, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews wrote:
                                  > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                                  > four-person systems, so what else is possible?

                                  Senjecas has the 4th person pronoun. The 3rd person pronoun uses the demonstrative adjective ‘nus’, that. Gender is not marked on the pronoun. The ‘–us’ ending indicates that the referent can speak. Senjecas is also pro-drop with respect to the subject. There are also prefixes to indicate sex for pronouns and epicene nouns: ‘nor-‘ for masculine and ‘ii-‘ for feminine.

                                  A sentence such as “she likes her” might be translated as “nus num pííra”. Not too clear. Adding the sexual prefixes doesn’t help, “iinus iinum pííra”. So, a 4th person pronoun is used, the demonstrative adjective ‘òlnus’, yon. Thus “(ii)nus (ii)òlnum pííra’’.

                                  BTW, Senjecas also uses ‘dus’, this, as a 3rd person pronoun. It is used in a formal context by inferiors to superiors, rather like ‘His Majesty', e.g., “Do you want to eat now/Does His/Your Majesty want to eat now?” “Dus ìmu édu ṁécar.”

                                  Charlie
                                • Anthony Miles
                                  ... Siye has five or six pronouns depending on how you look at it. The third person is split into animate i for ya and inanimate e or a . I have been
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    On 28 March 2013 19:39, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews wrote:
                                    > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                                    > four-person systems, so what else is possible?

                                    Siye has five or six pronouns depending on how you look at it. The third person is split into animate "i" for "ya" and inanimate "e" or "a". I have been using "um" for the third person indefinite pronoun as well as the reflexive pronoun, but I noticed yesterday that my older notes have "mu" as the indefinite in contrast to "um" as the reflexive. Thanks to this topic, I have an opportunity to correct my error!
                                  • George Marques de Jesus
                                    2013/3/28 Alex Fink ... This is my first conlang and I didn t give some thought about the morphology of the pronouns, just chose random
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      2013/3/28 Alex Fink <000024@...>

                                      > Double- (no, triple-)header.
                                      >
                                      > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:02:33 -0300, George Marques de Jesus <
                                      > georgemjesus@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja,
                                      > I
                                      > >have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
                                      > >variations.
                                      > >
                                      > >If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
                                      > >both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
                                      > >business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
                                      > >"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
                                      > >means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.
                                      >
                                      > I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of
                                      > these categories are closerly related than others, e.g.?
                                      >

                                      This is my first conlang and I didn't give some thought about the
                                      morphology of the pronouns, just chose random words (since it's an a priori
                                      language), but now wish I thought about it. They have different forms based
                                      on gender (there's two genders: animate and inanimate, although the plural
                                      is always used in the inanimate gender, unless you are a sort of
                                      omnipresent god).

                                      Namely, there's "moa" (inclusive), "nus" (exclusive) and "hen"
                                      (presential). The animate versions would be "ese", "ape" and "athe",
                                      respectively.


                                      >
                                      > Cued by your latter example alone, a breakdown ran through my mind where
                                      > you could segment the semantics as follows, which would then be a nice
                                      > decomposition to reflect in morphology. Your first example belies it for
                                      > Mihousapeja, though.
                                      >
                                      > (1) is the speaker in the group?
                                      > (2) is/are the listener(s) in the group?
                                      > (3) is the group extended to other people which the people present
                                      > represent, in the associative plural style?
                                      > 1 2 3
                                      > Y Y Y inclusive we
                                      > Y Y N presential we
                                      > Y N Y exclusive we
                                      > Y N N 1st singular
                                      > N Y Y much like 2nd plural, in practice?
                                      > N Y N much like 2nd singular?
                                      > N N Y if this has any meaning, then I suppose 3rd person
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Alex
                                      >

                                      I like this "truth table", never thought in this logical way. Also, I never
                                      heard of the "associative plural" before (I'm always learning something
                                      new), but it's basically the same idea. The presential is much like of a
                                      counterpart of the inclusive, used when the context might make it less
                                      clear, so in my first example, usually in a party the "we" refers to your
                                      group of friends (well, in a way it is the group you represent), so the
                                      presential can extend that meaning. In the second example the reverse
                                      occurs: the inclusive is too broad (because it includes associates), so you
                                      can narrow down to the people in the room.

                                      George Marques
                                    • Patrick Dunn
                                      The Oasa pronoun system looks like this: singular honorific plural inclusive plural exclusive plural autoexclusive first person ea (- a) shusi a (-si a) etano
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The Oasa pronoun system looks like this:


                                        singular

                                        honorific

                                        plural inclusive

                                        plural exclusive

                                        plural autoexclusive

                                        first person

                                        ea (-'a)

                                        shusi'a (-si'a)

                                        etano (-an)

                                        ealano (-an)

                                        ako (-ko)

                                        second person

                                        ita (-ta)

                                        hailota (-lota)


                                        itano (-tan)


                                        third person definite animate

                                        elu (-lu)



                                        eluno (-lun)


                                        third person definite inanimate

                                        ak'i (-k'i)



                                        ak'eno (-k'en)


                                        third person indefinite animate

                                        sho (-sho)



                                        shusho (-on)


                                        third person indefinite inanimate

                                        ha (-ha)



                                        hano (-han)




                                        The forms in parentheses are suffixes used with inalienable possessives and
                                        a few other situations. The honorific forms are used when speaking to a
                                        superior or a person one does not know well. The inclusive/exclusive
                                        distinction is obvious, but there's also an autoexclusive form -- ako --
                                        which is used in situations when one wishes to indicate a sense of
                                        membership without implying that one is actually literally involved. For
                                        example, if a team wins, you'd say "we (autoexclusive) won" if you are a
                                        fan of the team, and "we won" if you were actually on the team. It's also
                                        used in political situations, when a representative that the speaker voted
                                        for does something the speaker approves of, and in religious situations to
                                        indicate agreement with doctrines of the religion or philosophy.

                                        The indefinite are essentially equivalent to "one" or "someone," and are
                                        used for hearer-new information, while the definite third person is
                                        essentially "he/she," and used to refer to hearer-old information.

                                        The interrogative pronouns are nono for inanimates and nosho for animates.
                                        The suffix for both is -no. In extremely polite speech, the indefinite
                                        pronouns may be used for interrogatives.
                                      • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                                        I m also thinking they could be broken down into they, same gender for women, they, same gender for men, they, a man a woman alone, and they, a man a woman in
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Mar 28, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'm also thinking they could be broken down into they, same gender for
                                          women, they, same gender for men, they, a man a woman alone, and they, a man
                                          a woman in a group. Then, there's they for the group as a whole, and they
                                          for part of the group.Wow! As if our language wasn't confusing enough.

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                                          Behalf Of Patrick Dunn
                                          Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:20 PM
                                          To: CONLANG@...
                                          Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                                          On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener
                                          <burgener.daniel@...>wrote:

                                          > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                                          > goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that
                                          > distinguish
                                          > > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for
                                          gossiping
                                          > about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all
                                          nouns,
                                          > including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
                                          > "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a
                                          gender
                                          > and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
                                          > married and female for example).
                                          >

                                          Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. "I just found a
                                          chair.MAR at the thriftstore."



                                          --
                                          Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
                                          order from Finishing Line
                                          Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
                                          and
                                          Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr
                                          _1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
                                        • Jyri Lehtinen
                                          I ve been reading Foley s The Papuan languages of New Guinea and it lists some pretty strange ways for splitting the pronominal space. The most insane system
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I've been reading Foley's "The Papuan languages of New Guinea" and it lists
                                            some pretty strange ways for splitting the pronominal space. The most
                                            insane system are the singular pronouns of Ngala:

                                            1.SG.M wɨn
                                            1.SG.F nyɨn
                                            2.SG.M mɨn
                                            2.SG.F yɨn
                                            3.SG.M kɨr
                                            3.SG.F yɨn

                                            First of all the language extends the masculine/feminine split into not
                                            only the second person but all the way to the first person. On top of that
                                            it doesn't distinguish the feminine second and third person singular
                                            pronouns. I guess you have to have quite strict gender rules in your
                                            society in order to make this kind of a system stable. Related languages
                                            don't appear to be as insane as Ngala and only distinguish M/F in their
                                            second and third person pronouns. They also have distinctly shaped pronouns
                                            for both persons in both genders with the 2.SG.F pronoun providing an
                                            obvious cognate for the Ngala 1.SG.F pronoun. The languages are also
                                            reasonable in not extending the gender distinction into their dual and
                                            plural pronouns.

                                            Another strange feature of many Papuan languages is that there is
                                            apparently often a connection between the second person singular and first
                                            person non-singular pronouns. As an example Foley gives the personal
                                            pronouns of Suki:

                                            SG PL
                                            1 ne e
                                            2 e de
                                            3 u i

                                            Many languages of the area also make only partial person distinction in
                                            their non-singular pronouns. So for example Awa contrasts in plural _ite_
                                            (1/2.PL) with _se_ (3.PL) and Iatmul in dual _an_ (1.DU) with _mpɨk_
                                            (2/3.DU).

                                            Some of these features are very strange and I would have considered them
                                            wildly unnaturalistic if I would have encountered them first in someone's
                                            conlang.

                                            None of the conlangs I'm working with does anything too strange with their
                                            personal pronouns. I'm including a first person inclusive pronoun in Kišta
                                            (which I'm just parsing together from a decade of sketching) that goes back
                                            to a form *šən(ə). This can be broken down into the first person plural
                                            pronominal base *šə and a suffix *-n(ə). The same, or at least very
                                            similar, suffix has also worked as the dual suffix of nouns and can be seen
                                            in various pair derivations in modern Kišta, such as:

                                            *malə > malla ("eye")
                                            *malə-n > malan ("the pair of eyes")

                                            My rational for this development is that in discourse the first person dual
                                            seems to be much more biased towards inclusive use ("you and I") than first
                                            person plural. If the dual number erodes away, the first person dual
                                            pronoun might just survive because of its inclusive use and generalise out
                                            of the dual meaning. I don't know if such development is attested from any
                                            natural language and would be glad to hear if anyone else knows.

                                            -Jyri


                                            2013/3/29 Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>

                                            > I'm also thinking they could be broken down into they, same gender for
                                            > women, they, same gender for men, they, a man a woman alone, and they, a
                                            > man
                                            > a woman in a group. Then, there's they for the group as a whole, and they
                                            > for part of the group.Wow! As if our language wasn't confusing enough.
                                            >
                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                            > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                                            > Behalf Of Patrick Dunn
                                            > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:20 PM
                                            > To: CONLANG@...
                                            > Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
                                            >
                                            > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener
                                            > <burgener.daniel@...>wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                                            > > goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that
                                            > > distinguish
                                            > > > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            > > In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for
                                            > gossiping
                                            > > about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all
                                            > nouns,
                                            > > including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
                                            > > "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a
                                            > gender
                                            > > and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
                                            > > married and female for example).
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. "I just found a
                                            > chair.MAR at the thriftstore."
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --
                                            > Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
                                            > order from Finishing Line
                                            > Press<
                                            > http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
                                            > and
                                            > Amazon<
                                            > http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr
                                            > _1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
                                            >
                                          • BPJ
                                            ... My conlang Sohlob has demonstrative or deictic pronouns marked for the following categories: Number: ~ These are rather mundanely singular and plural,
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 2013-03-28 07:39, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews wrote:
                                              > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                                              > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
                                              > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections of
                                              > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is in
                                              > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.

                                              My conlang Sohlob has demonstrative or deictic
                                              pronouns marked for the following categories:

                                              Number:
                                              ~ These are rather mundanely singular and plural,
                                              but pronouns are actually different from nouns
                                              in being marked for number. This is perhaps
                                              more accurately described as 'marked for plurality'
                                              vs. 'not marked for plurality' as some 'singular'
                                              forms *can* be used with plural referents.

                                              Gender:
                                              ~ There are three genders. Unlike the genders in
                                              languages like German and French they are in no way
                                              associated with what sex people are. Instead they
                                              are

                                              Loquent:
                                              ~ 'able to speak',
                                              Animate:
                                              ~ 'living' and
                                              Inanimate:
                                              ~ 'non-living things'.

                                              Nouns *have* gender but unlike pronouns they are
                                              not *marked* for it. The assignment of nouns to
                                              genders is mostly based on whether the things
                                              designated by the noun actually are able to speak,
                                              living or neither, but there are some you wouldn't
                                              see coming:

                                              Loquent:
                                              ~ Includes various supernatural beings like
                                              gods, demons and ghosts, as well as birds
                                              and musical instruments.
                                              Moreover *any* noun can become loquent in
                                              a fable or similar story, or in metaphors.
                                              Animate:
                                              ~ Includes fire, water and bodies of water,
                                              weather phenomena and houses.

                                              Proximity:
                                              ~ Three levels of distance from the speaker.

                                              The fancy terms for these levels of distance are
                                              Proximal, Mesial and Distal but they are
                                              perhaps better described by the translations I
                                              use for them: 'this', 'that' and 'yonder',
                                              or 'this here', 'that there' and 'that yonder'.
                                              'Yonder' can also be described as 'other that'
                                              and is often used similar to a fourth person.

                                              Specificity:
                                              ~ Singular pronouns (or rather pronouns not marked
                                              for plurality) can be marked for *non-specificity*.
                                              This may be translated as 'some/someone/something'
                                              except that it combines with the proximity marking
                                              which makes it somewhat 'exotic'.

                                              A twist is introduced into the system by the fact that
                                              the Specific Loquent pronouns have shifted their
                                              meaning and come to be used as personal pronouns, the
                                              original personal pronouns falling into disuse. The
                                              meaning shifts are as follows:

                                              In the singular:
                                              ~ Proximal Loquent:
                                              ~ means first person: 'I'.
                                              ~ Mesial Loquent:
                                              ~ means second person: 'you/thou'.
                                              ~ Distal Loquent:
                                              ~ means third person: 'he/she' (with no sex distinction).
                                              In the plural:
                                              ~ Proximal Loquent:
                                              ~ means first person exclusive: 'we but not you'.
                                              ~ Mesial Loquent:
                                              ~ means first person inclusive: 'we/I and you'.
                                              ~ Distal Loquent:
                                              ~ means second person plural: 'you (all)/yous'.

                                              To 'make up' for this change the Animate pronouns can
                                              take the ending _-shan/-shen_ meaning '-person' (also
                                              used with nouns) and then function as Loquent demonstrative
                                              or deictic pronouns.

                                              The Animate and Inanimate pronoun series also function as
                                              determiners and articles, placed at the end of the noun phrase.
                                              This is also how definite noun phrases are marked for number.
                                              Nouns can also be marked as indefinite singular by the same
                                              suffix used to form Non-Specific pronouns.

                                              /pbj
                                            • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
                                              I tried to looke up different pronominal systems, but couldn t find anything.Maybe I researched it wrong. ... From: Constructed Languages List
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I tried to looke up different pronominal systems, but couldn't find anything.Maybe I researched it wrong.


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Jyri Lehtinen
                                                Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:07 AM
                                                To: CONLANG@...
                                                Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System

                                                I've been reading Foley's "The Papuan languages of New Guinea" and it lists
                                                some pretty strange ways for splitting the pronominal space. The most
                                                insane system are the singular pronouns of Ngala:

                                                1.SG.M wɨn
                                                1.SG.F nyɨn
                                                2.SG.M mɨn
                                                2.SG.F yɨn
                                                3.SG.M kɨr
                                                3.SG.F yɨn

                                                First of all the language extends the masculine/feminine split into not
                                                only the second person but all the way to the first person. On top of that
                                                it doesn't distinguish the feminine second and third person singular
                                                pronouns. I guess you have to have quite strict gender rules in your
                                                society in order to make this kind of a system stable. Related languages
                                                don't appear to be as insane as Ngala and only distinguish M/F in their
                                                second and third person pronouns. They also have distinctly shaped pronouns
                                                for both persons in both genders with the 2.SG.F pronoun providing an
                                                obvious cognate for the Ngala 1.SG.F pronoun. The languages are also
                                                reasonable in not extending the gender distinction into their dual and
                                                plural pronouns.

                                                Another strange feature of many Papuan languages is that there is
                                                apparently often a connection between the second person singular and first
                                                person non-singular pronouns. As an example Foley gives the personal
                                                pronouns of Suki:

                                                SG PL
                                                1 ne e
                                                2 e de
                                                3 u i

                                                Many languages of the area also make only partial person distinction in
                                                their non-singular pronouns. So for example Awa contrasts in plural _ite_
                                                (1/2.PL) with _se_ (3.PL) and Iatmul in dual _an_ (1.DU) with _mpɨk_
                                                (2/3.DU).

                                                Some of these features are very strange and I would have considered them
                                                wildly unnaturalistic if I would have encountered them first in someone's
                                                conlang.

                                                None of the conlangs I'm working with does anything too strange with their
                                                personal pronouns. I'm including a first person inclusive pronoun in Kišta
                                                (which I'm just parsing together from a decade of sketching) that goes back
                                                to a form *šən(ə). This can be broken down into the first person plural
                                                pronominal base *šə and a suffix *-n(ə). The same, or at least very
                                                similar, suffix has also worked as the dual suffix of nouns and can be seen
                                                in various pair derivations in modern Kišta, such as:

                                                *malə > malla ("eye")
                                                *malə-n > malan ("the pair of eyes")

                                                My rational for this development is that in discourse the first person dual
                                                seems to be much more biased towards inclusive use ("you and I") than first
                                                person plural. If the dual number erodes away, the first person dual
                                                pronoun might just survive because of its inclusive use and generalise out
                                                of the dual meaning. I don't know if such development is attested from any
                                                natural language and would be glad to hear if anyone else knows.

                                                -Jyri


                                                2013/3/29 Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...>

                                                > I'm also thinking they could be broken down into they, same gender for
                                                > women, they, same gender for men, they, a man a woman alone, and they, a
                                                > man
                                                > a woman in a group. Then, there's they for the group as a whole, and they
                                                > for part of the group.Wow! As if our language wasn't confusing enough.
                                                >
                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                                                > Behalf Of Patrick Dunn
                                                > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:20 PM
                                                > To: CONLANG@...
                                                > Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
                                                >
                                                > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener
                                                > <burgener.daniel@...>wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
                                                > > goldyemoran@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that
                                                > > distinguish
                                                > > > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                > > In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for
                                                > gossiping
                                                > > about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all
                                                > nouns,
                                                > > including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
                                                > > "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a
                                                > gender
                                                > > and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
                                                > > married and female for example).
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. "I just found a
                                                > chair.MAR at the thriftstore."
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --
                                                > Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
                                                > order from Finishing Line
                                                > Press<
                                                > http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
                                                > and
                                                > Amazon<
                                                > http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr
                                                > _1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
                                                >
                                              • yuri
                                                ... Yes, please do spell it Klaχa. I would spell it Klaχa if I had a quick way of typing χ (Gnome 2 on Mint 9, soon to upgrade to newer Mint with MATE or
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On 29 March 2013 06:25, Alex Fink wrote:
                                                  >>There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
                                                  >>be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
                                                  >>suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
                                                  >>distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
                                                  >>the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).
                                                  >
                                                  > I don't remember if Klaχa (can I spell it that way?) is a posteriori, so I'm at a
                                                  > loss for how to guess...

                                                  Yes, please do spell it Klaχa. I would spell it Klaχa if I had a quick
                                                  way of typing "χ" (Gnome 2 on Mint 9, soon to upgrade to newer Mint
                                                  with MATE or Cinnamon. CapsLock remapped to Compose key).

                                                  The grammar is a priori. A large chunk of vocab is a posteriori so
                                                  -wīn and -tān are borrowed.

                                                  There are many aspects of Klaχa that are very contrived. It is after
                                                  all my first (and only) conlang. It's actually partly artlang and
                                                  partly auxlang, designed for my very secret society of which I am the
                                                  only member and keen to recruit :-)

                                                  I would've started teaching it to my children (4 and 2) but I'm
                                                  focusing on teaching them Dutch so Klaχa is on the backburner.

                                                  Yuri
                                                • Padraic Brown
                                                  ... Were you craving a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when you wrote that post? ;)))) PB (sans J)
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- On Fri, 3/29/13, BPJ <bpj@...> wrote:

                                                    >
                                                    > /pbj
                                                    >

                                                    Were you craving a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when you wrote that
                                                    post? ;))))

                                                    PB (sans J)
                                                  • neo gu
                                                    ... For my newest project (called Mar27) I have the following personal pronouns: bi-, se- 1st person roots (singular and exclusive plural forms each) me-, ma-
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Mar 29, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:39:16 -0700, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemoran@...> wrote:

                                                      >Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
                                                      >four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
                                                      >thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections of
                                                      >the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is in
                                                      >with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.

                                                      For my newest project (called Mar27) I have the following personal pronouns:

                                                      bi-, se- 1st person roots (singular and exclusive plural forms each)
                                                      me-, ma- 1st person inclusive roots (dual and plural forms each)
                                                      go-, ka- 2nd person roots (singular and plural forms each)
                                                      'e- 3rd person topical animate (singular and plural forms)
                                                      da- 3rd person other animate (singular and plural forms)
                                                      i- 3rd person inanimate (singular and plural forms)

                                                      I have the following additional pronouns:

                                                      qa'- animate interrogative (roughly, "who")
                                                      qai- inanimate interrogative (roughly, "what")
                                                      ta- reflexive
                                                      no- resumptive

                                                      There are also pronominal forms of most determiners.
                                                    • BPJ
                                                      ... Actually I can t stand peanut butter! My children will gleefully tell you the story about when they made a PBJ sandwich for my birthday breakfast and I
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Mar 30, 2013
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Den fredagen den 29:e mars 2013 skrev Padraic Brown:

                                                        > --- On Fri, 3/29/13, BPJ <bpj@... <javascript:;>> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > /pbj
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        > Were you craving a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when you wrote that
                                                        > post? ;))))


                                                        Actually I can't stand peanut butter! My children will gleefully tell you
                                                        the story about when they made a PBJ sandwich for my birthday breakfast and
                                                        I felt I had to eat it...

                                                        /bpj



                                                        >
                                                        > PB (sans J)
                                                        >
                                                      • Logan Kearsley
                                                        ... Well, now I ve got an ANADEW example for Mev Pailom s pronouns, which also distinguish feminine and masculine first person. Merging the 2nd and 3rd person
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Mar 30, 2013
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On 29 March 2013 05:07, Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.jyri@...> wrote:
                                                          > I've been reading Foley's "The Papuan languages of New Guinea" and it lists
                                                          > some pretty strange ways for splitting the pronominal space. The most
                                                          > insane system are the singular pronouns of Ngala:
                                                          >
                                                          > 1.SG.M wɨn
                                                          > 1.SG.F nyɨn
                                                          > 2.SG.M mɨn
                                                          > 2.SG.F yɨn
                                                          > 3.SG.M kɨr
                                                          > 3.SG.F yɨn
                                                          >
                                                          > First of all the language extends the masculine/feminine split into not
                                                          > only the second person but all the way to the first person. On top of that
                                                          > it doesn't distinguish the feminine second and third person singular
                                                          > pronouns. I guess you have to have quite strict gender rules in your
                                                          > society in order to make this kind of a system stable.

                                                          Well, now I've got an ANADEW example for Mev Pailom's pronouns, which
                                                          also distinguish feminine and masculine first person.
                                                          Merging the 2nd and 3rd person feminine is certainly odd, but I don't
                                                          think it would require particularly strict societal rules to maintain
                                                          the first-person gender distinction. While I don't know of any other
                                                          language that distinguishes the *forms* of the pronouns specifically,
                                                          Russian assigns grammatical gender to first and second person pronouns
                                                          based on biological sex of the referent, and has different agreement
                                                          forms for predicate adjectives and past-tense verbs that depend on
                                                          gender, which creates morphological distinctions in the first-person
                                                          speech of men and women.

                                                          > Another strange feature of many Papuan languages is that there is
                                                          > apparently often a connection between the second person singular and first
                                                          > person non-singular pronouns. As an example Foley gives the personal
                                                          > pronouns of Suki:
                                                          >
                                                          > SG PL
                                                          > 1 ne e
                                                          > 2 e de
                                                          > 3 u i
                                                          >
                                                          > Many languages of the area also make only partial person distinction in
                                                          > their non-singular pronouns. So for example Awa contrasts in plural _ite_
                                                          > (1/2.PL) with _se_ (3.PL) and Iatmul in dual _an_ (1.DU) with _mpɨk_
                                                          > (2/3.DU).
                                                          >
                                                          > Some of these features are very strange and I would have considered them
                                                          > wildly unnaturalistic if I would have encountered them first in someone's
                                                          > conlang.

                                                          Now *that's* cool. It's sort of a mirror image of the 1st person
                                                          inclusive/exclusive distinction- English "we" is ambiguous between
                                                          including the addressee or not (but always includes the speaker),
                                                          while I'd guess Awa "ite" is ambiguous between including the speaker
                                                          or not (but always includes the addressee; if I'm wrong in that guess,
                                                          well, there's a cool conlang idea for you).

                                                          -l.
                                                        • Jyri Lehtinen
                                                          ... The full material presented in the book gives a somewhat more complicated picture of the whole situation of pronominal marking in Awa. The full set of
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Apr 1, 2013
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            > > Many languages of the area also make only partial person distinction in
                                                            > > their non-singular pronouns. So for example Awa contrasts in plural _ite_
                                                            > > (1/2.PL) with _se_ (3.PL) and Iatmul in dual _an_ (1.DU) with _mpɨk_
                                                            > > (2/3.DU).
                                                            > >
                                                            > > Some of these features are very strange and I would have considered them
                                                            > > wildly unnaturalistic if I would have encountered them first in someone's
                                                            > > conlang.
                                                            >
                                                            > Now *that's* cool. It's sort of a mirror image of the 1st person
                                                            > inclusive/exclusive distinction- English "we" is ambiguous between
                                                            > including the addressee or not (but always includes the speaker),
                                                            > while I'd guess Awa "ite" is ambiguous between including the speaker
                                                            > or not (but always includes the addressee; if I'm wrong in that guess,
                                                            > well, there's a cool conlang idea for you)


                                                            The full material presented in the book gives a somewhat more complicated
                                                            picture of the whole situation of pronominal marking in Awa. The full set
                                                            of personal pronouns is

                                                            SG PL
                                                            1 ne ite
                                                            2 are ite
                                                            3 we se

                                                            where we have the conflation of 1PL and 2PL. The basic system of subject
                                                            suffixes of the verbs is

                                                            SG DU PL
                                                            1 -ga -ya -na
                                                            2 -na -ya -wa
                                                            3 -de -ya -wa

                                                            We have even heavier conflation here than with the independent pronouns but
                                                            the patterns are totally different. Firstly the plural series merges 2PL
                                                            with 3PL instead of 1PL. The 1PL has the same form as 2SG displaying the
                                                            same pattern as the Suki pronouns but unlike the language's own independent
                                                            pronouns. Finally there's a dual series that merges all persons and
                                                            signifies only the number of the subject.

                                                            The material doesn't give any information on the use of the independent
                                                            pronouns and subject suffixes. Most importantly, how mandatorily are the
                                                            independent pronouns used to clarify unspecified person and number of the
                                                            subject or are they just reserved for stuff like topicalised subjects? In
                                                            any case the language has in principle tools for distinguishing all other
                                                            person-number combinations of the subject except probably 1DU and 2DU. I
                                                            suspect these will both get _ite_ and -ya.

                                                            The language also has a secondary set of subject suffixes:

                                                            SG DU PL
                                                            1 -ʔ -yaʔ -naʔ
                                                            2 -naʔ -yaʔ -ʔ
                                                            3 -ʔ -yaʔ -ʔ

                                                            This system is even more conflated than the first set of suffixes.
                                                            Annoyingly no information is given concerning when this system should be
                                                            used instead of the first one.

                                                            So it turns out to be rather tricky to come up with any overarching
                                                            philosophy behind the person and number marking in Awa. What this example
                                                            tells us is that it's certainly possible to merge different cells of the
                                                            person-number matrix quite heavily and even have multiple patterns for it
                                                            within the same language. Some of the patterns that are present here are
                                                            not too rare and especially the lack of person distinction in dual (or
                                                            other highly marked numbers) is something that you run across now and then.

                                                            I don't know how accurate your analysis is of _ite_ being ambiguous
                                                            regarding the inclusion of the speaker but always including the addressee.
                                                            I'd suspect it can also be used in the sense of an exclusive we thus
                                                            excluding the addressee.

                                                            -Jyri
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.