Re: Conlangs and English Language History
- "they" was borrowed from Old Norse. The original Old English third person
plural pronoun was "hie." The third person pronoun system in the
nominative in OE was:
he -- he
heo -- she
hie -- they
"she" comes from the demonstrative feminine "seo," IIRC. And "they" comes
from Old Norse.
Pronouns tend to be *fairly* stable and not be borrowed, but it does
happen. Heh. Obviously.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:57:54AM -0500, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> > If you're going to have a culture conquered by another culture
> > speaking a different language, you might look at the transition from
> > Old English to Middle English to see how that works out in one case.
> > But you're probably not going to want to borrow your third person
> > plural pronoun from a *third* language just because English did: that
> > was weird.
> Really, English got its 3PL pronoun from a third language? Which one
> would that be?
> One thing that has always struck me as very odd is the fact that IE
> pronouns seem to be all over the map. Are there any references that
> explain exactly where they came from and why?
> Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but when I see things like Russian
> _его_ (3SG acc.) vs. Greek _ἐγω_ (1SG nom.), or English _me_ (1SG acc.)
> vs. Russian _мы_ (1PL nom.), it makes me wonder if they're cognates, and
> if so, why such drastic differences in meaning? Or why in Greek various
> cognates of _αὐτο_ (reflexive pron., IIRC) came to be used as 3rd person
> pronouns (like _ἐαυτο_, etc.)? While, at the same time, other things
> like English _thee_ and Russian _ты_, or Russian _-(е/и)те_ vs. Greek
> _-ετε_ appear to have survived the ravages of time mostly untouched.
> Are these merely superficial coincidences, or signs of something really
> weird going on with IE pronominal systems?
> Perhaps the most widespread illusion is that if we were in power we
> would behave very differently from those who now hold it---when, in
> truth, in order to get power we would have to become very much like
> them. -- Unknown
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
- 2013/4/30 Herman Miller <hmiller@...>:
> On 4/30/2013 12:38 PM, Leonardo Castro wrote:Nice! I have already considered <ñ> or <ŋ> for /ŋ/ and <ñ> or <~> for
>> 2013/4/30 BPJ<bpj@...>:
>>> 2013-04-30 13:49, Leonardo Castro skrev:
>>>> BTW, does anyone have a system that distinguishes /n/, /m/, /N/ and a
>>>> general nasal stop /~/ with Roman characters?
>>> You mean nasalization like in French or Portuguese I suppose,
>>> coz that's what /~/ is.
>> I meant a nasal stop that has the same place of articulation as the
>> following consonant. That is, it "absorbs" the place of articulation
>> of the following consonant.
> Sounds like anusvara in Indic languages, which can be represented as m with
> a dot under it (ṃ). If you're using <ṃ>, you might as well also use <ṅ> (n
> with dot above) for /ŋ/.
> In Yasaro romanization I use <ñ> for homorganic nasals and <ŋ> (eng) for
homorganic nasals. I think your choices are probably the best looking;
"teñki" looks a lot better than "te~ki". There's also the option of
letting <n> always stand for homorganic nasals before consonants and
for /n/ before vowels, if you conlang doesn't have minimal pairs that
cause ambiguity in this system.