Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various number

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various number

Post by eldin raigmore »

Here is a four-grammatical-person six-grammatical-number inventory of independent personal pronouns (ignoring case and gender) for a language with seven vowels (a,e,i,o,u,w,y) and nineteen consonants (b,c,d,f,g,h,j,k,l,m,n,p,q,r,s,t,v,x,z).

The Persons are uncreatively 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. ("4th person" might be obviative, or a long-distance anaphor, or something else.)

The Numbers are Singular, Dual, Trial, Paucal, Plural, and Greater Plural.

For those impatient to skip to the end, it has 73 pronouns.

There are fifteen root pronouns based on which persons they include.

I write a numerical summary for each pronoun in a way I hope each reader will understand;
1 means 1st person(s), exclusively;
2 means 2nd person(s), exclusively;
3 means 3rd person(s), exclusively;
4 means 4th person(s), exclusively;

12 means both 1st person(s) and 2nd person(s) are included, but no 3rd nor 4th persons are included;

13 means both 1st person(s) and 3rd person(s) are included, but no 2nd nor 4th persons are included;

14 means both 1st person(s) and 4th person(s) are included, but no 2nd nor 3rd persons are included;

23 means both 2nd person(s) and 3rd person(s) are included, but no 1st nor 4th persons are included;

24 means both 2nd person(s) and 4th person(s) are included, but no 1st nor 3rd persons are included;

34 means both 3rd person(s) and 4th person(s) are included, but no 1st nor 2nd persons are included;

123 means 1st and 2nd and 3rd persons are included, but 4th persons are excluded;

124 means 1st and 2nd and 4th persons are included, but 3rd persons are excluded;

134 means 1st and 3rd and 4th persons are included, but 2nd persons are excluded;

234 means 2nd and 3rd and 4th persons are included, but 1st persons are excluded;

1234 means the antecedent for the pronoun -- the group to which it refers -- contains at least one individual from each grammatical person.

The fifteen "root" pronouns have the form CVCCVC.

Code: Select all

If the numerical summary of the person(s) begins with:
1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 12 . 13 . 23 . 14 . 24 . 34  123  124  134  234
Then the word begins with the letter or letters:
b . c . d . f . be . bi . ci . bo . co . do  beh  bej  bij  cij

Code: Select all

If the numerical summary of the person(s) ends with:
4 . 3 . 2 . 1 . 34 . 24 . 23 . 14 . 13 . 12  234  134  124  123
Then the word ends with the letter or letters:
r . q . p . n . yr . wr . wq . ur . uq . up  myr  lyr  lwr  lwq

--------------------------------------------------------------

So this is the list of the fifteen "root" pronouns;

Code: Select all

Word.. Persons Included
 
bagkon 1
cagkop 2
dagkoq 3
fagkor 4
begkup 12
bigkuq 13
bogkur 14
cigkwq 23
cogkwr 24
dogkyr 34
behlwq 123
bejlwr 124
bijlyr 134
cijmyr 234
behmyr 1234


--------------------------------------------------------------

The system has six grammatical numbers (one more than any attested natlang, although most five- and four-number subsystems of this system are attested).

The numbers are:
Singular, Dual, Trial, Paucal, Plural, and Greater Plural.

Each of the fifteen "root" pronouns means the "Minimal" number of individuals it can mean and still include precisely one individual from each of its component grammatical persons.

To form other pronouns from the root, a -VC suffix is added.

The next greater number uses -VC=-aC;
the next after that, -VC=-eC;
the next after that, -VC=-iC;
the next after that, -VC=-oC;
and the next after that, -VC=-uC.

If the result is Dual, -VC=-Vs;
if the result is Trial, -VC=-Vt;
if the result is Paucal, -VC=-Vv;
if the result is Plural, -VC=-Vx;
and if the result is Greater Plural, -VC=-Vz.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, here are all the pronouns;
(the table is split into to parts; Singular through Plural, then Dual through Greater Plural.)

Code: Select all

Person ...... Singular Dual ... Trial .. Paucal . Plural 
1st exclusive bagkon . bagkonas bagkonet bagkoniv bagkonox
2nd exclusive cagkop . cagkopas cagkopet cagkopiv cagkopox
3rd exclusive dagkoq . dagkoqas dagkoqet dagkoqiv dagkoqox
4th exclusive fagkor . fagkoras fagkoret fagkoriv fagkorox
1st+2nd inclu ........ begkup . begkupat begkupev begkupix
1st+3rd inclu ........ bigkuq . bigkuqat bigkuqev bigkuqix
1st+4th inclu ........ bogkur . bogkurat bogkurev bogkurix
2nd+3rd inclu ........ cigkwq . cigkwqat cigkwqev cigkwqix
2nd+4th inclu ........ cogkwr . cogkwrat cogkwrev cogkwrix
3rd+4th inclu ........ dogkyr . dogkyrat dogkyrev dogkyrix
1+2+3 ....... ........ ........ behlwq . behlwqav behlwqex
1+2+4 ....... ........ ........ bejlwr . bejlwrav bejlwrex
1+3+4 ....... ........ ........ bijlyr . bijlyrav bijlyrex
2+3+4 ....... ........ ........ cijmyr . cijmyrav cijmyrex
1+2+3+4 ..... ........ ........ ........ behmyr . behmyrax

Code: Select all

Person .... Dual ... Trial .. Paucal . Plural . Greater Plural 
1st exclusi bagkonas bagkonet bagkoniv bagkonox bagkonuz
2nd exclusi cagkopas cagkopet cagkopiv cagkopox cagkopuz
3rd exclusi dagkoqas dagkoqet dagkoqiv dagkoqox dagkoquz
4th exclusi fagkoras fagkoret fagkoriv fagkorox fagkoruz
1st+2nd inc begkup . begkupat begkupev begkupix begkupoz
1st+3rd inc bigkuq . bigkuqat bigkuqev bigkuqix bigkuqoz
1st+4th inc bogkur . bogkurat bogkurev bogkurix bogkuroz
2nd+3rd inc cigkwq . cigkwqat cigkwqev cigkwqix cigkwqoz
2nd+4th inc cogkwr . cogkwrat cogkwrev cogkwrix cogkwroz
3rd+4th inc dogkyr . dogkyrat dogkyrev dogkyrix dogkyroz
1+2+3 ..... ........ behlwq . behlwqav behlwqex behlwqiz
1+2+4 ..... ........ bejlwr . bejlwrav bejlwrex bejlwriz
1+3+4 ..... ........ bijlyr . bijlyrav bijlyrex bijlyriz
2+3+4 ..... ........ cijmyr . cijmyrav cijmyrex cijmyriz
1+2+3+4 ... ........ ........ behmyr . behmyrax behmyrez


--------------------------------------------------------------

The system is not all that unreasonable considering the amount of information it is tasked to deliver.

Many languages have two-syllable pronouns; this one has three-syllable pronouns, not a big step up.

Each root pronoun differs from each other root pronoun in at least two phonemes.

Except for the pure-grammatical-person singular roots (bagkon, cagkop, dagkoq, fagkor) there is no case where two roots share four phonemes in a row; and even in this case, both the first and the last phonemes -- high-saliency phonemes -- differ.

So I don't think the roots are likely to get confused with each other.

For any two pronouns for different numbers for the same root, they differ in at least two phonemes.

Pronouns for the same number but slightly different person/clusivity have more-than-slightly-different form.

For instance compare 1st plural, 2nd plural, and 1+2 plural;
bagkonox, cagkopox, begkupix
begkupix (1+2 plural) does not have any vowel equal to the corresponding vowel of either bagkonox (1st plural) nor cagkopox (2nd plural)

For another instance, compare 1+2 plural, 1+3 plural, and 2+3 plural to 1+2+3 plural;
begkupix, bigkuqix, and cigkwqix, to behlwqex
the "hl" and the final "e" do not occur in the 1+2, 1+3, or 2+3 plurals.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You could do something like this if you did not wish to reduce your pronoun inventory. And of course if you had only three grammatical persons, and/or had fewer grammatical numbers (e.g. ditch the trial and the greater plural), of course you'd have fewer such pronouns.

Corbett's "Number" gives a few ideas on how to reduce it: That is, how natural languages with, say, four or more different grammatical numbers, and pronouns that show both person and clusivity, use the same pronoun to show different combinations of clusivity and number and person.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you also want your pronouns to inflect (or whatever) for case, and/or for gender, that might grow the pronoun inventory, and also lead to longer pronouns. Odds are the root will be different depending on which genders its antecedent includes, but an affix might be used to show case. In natlangs if gender is involved in any 1st-person or 2nd-person pronoun it's also involved in a 3rd-person pronoun; and for the most part if gender is involved in any non-singular pronoun it's also involved in a singular pronoun.

OTOH in some natural languages, the way a verb agrees with its participant(s), is to incorporate into the verb pronouns (or, often, reduced forms of those pronouns) co-referring to the participant(s). If you want to do something like that you'll need to come up with such reduced forms for such non-independent versions of these independent personal pronouns.

OK:
Who has a pronoun-system they want to show off? I'm assuming it's probably in your conlang, but it might be in someone else's conlang, or in some natlang you happen to know (whether it's your L1 or not).
User avatar
Sangfroidish
greek
greek
Posts: 837
Joined: 29 Mar 2013 17:59
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Sangfroidish »

eldin raigmore wrote:Who has a pronoun-system they want to show off?
Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, where 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, i.e. for forming certain statements in the passive voice) and six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative, with instrumental possibly joining them at some point). 1st-3rd person pronouns exist for singular, dual and plural numbers. Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) and noun class (animate, inanimate, and abstract) in all three numbers, and first-person pronouns by clusivity in the dual and plural. All in all, that's... 162 personal pronouns, possibly about to become 189.

I feel I may have gone a little overboard at some stage.
Last edited by Sangfroidish on 25 Aug 2013 14:55, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Yačay256
greek
greek
Posts: 648
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:57
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Yačay256 »

Well, as for Pyeom, personal pronouns are not commonly used, being that, similarly to Elamite, person must be marked on every nominal by a prefix, which are as follows, for each of the language's four persons: EXCL, INCL, 2, 3=ñ-, g-, m-, ∅-. A mandatory epenthetic echo vowel from the right and of the mid tone is placed directly after the consonant so as to make it an onset. Determiners and nominal classifiers must agree with their nominal's in person and while the consonants of both of their own separate sets of prefixes are identical, the echo vowel takes the low tone in determiners and a high tone in nominal classifiers.

The sixteen independent personal pronominals act exactly like nominals lexically and grammatically but are semantically more like determiners; this is so due to the fact that, as person is already marked morphologically, they interestingly indicate animacy of a system which has completely disappeared in Pyeom nominal morphology and otherwise except in determiner morphology (where they represent the animacy of the referent nominal). In both cases, animacy consists of five grades: Rational, abstract, artificial, animate and inanimate: These five grades are marked by the prefixes <∅->, <lú->, <xawr->, <cwìwl-> and <tweúl-> in determiners, respectively. Animacy is determined largely semantically (completely so in pronominals) but also has a strong lexical component.

Pronominals also distinguish exophora vs. endophora.

P.S.: I will probably post the independent personal pronominals up in a few sample declinations. The reason I will not post an entire table of declinations for even one nominal stem is that Pyeom has an extremely rich morphology, more so in its nominals than in any other part of speech, and also it has a highly regular but relatively complex agglutinative morphophonology which, coupled with a morphophonemic segmental script (and thus a morphophonemic "main" latinization) would require IPA for virtually every usable word.

EDIT: There are 16, not ten, independent personal pronouns in Pyeom. I miscalculated.
¡Mñíĝínxàʋày!
¡[ˈmí.ɲ̟ōj.ˌɣín.ʃà.βä́j]!
2-POSS.EXCL.ALIEN-COMP-friend.comrade
Hello, colleagues!
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22
Location: Third star on the left, straight on till tiffin
Contact:

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by prettydragoon »

The personal pronouns of Rireinutire are perfectly simple and straightforward, for the most part. There are three persons (first, second, and third). First person refers to a group including the speaker, second person to a group including the listener but not the speaker, and third person to a group including neither. Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate). All of them decline in each of the twelve cases, just like nouns.

The only complicated feature is that the pronouns have two different forms depending on the number of referents, ie. whether there are one or more persons, animals, or whatever the pronoun refers to. I call these forms singular for one and plural for more than one.

Code: Select all

  	SG	PL
1 	ma	me
2 	ta	te
3R	ha	he
3F	ka	ke
3M	pa	pe
3I	sa	se
So, as there are twelve pronoun stems, and each declines in twelve cases, there are 144 different pronoun forms.
Image
♀♥♀
What is this, how you say, Rireinutire?
Sasquatch
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 182
Joined: 30 Jun 2013 00:24

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Sasquatch »

Thanks for this thread. You've shown me that pronouns don't have to be monosyllabic. I've had a bit of a mental block about that. I'm just starting to decide what permutations of persons I want to include in my pronouns.

I do have a few oddities to add to the thread;

I have proximal/distal distinction in the first and second persons as well as the third. These are mainly literary devices that allow authors to distance their egos from their work and to address readers in a more generic fashion.

There is no gender in my language. But it will be possible to inflect pronouns (and nouns for that matter) to show gender if desired, male-person or female-person. It *may* be possible to use this technique to inflect for other traits as well (tall-person, tan-person, hairy-person....).

I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of distinguishing between plural combinations, ie;
1s+2s
vs
1s+2p
vs
1p+2s
vs
1p+2p

At the moment, I only have singular and plural. But given how my number system is designed it wouldn't be any harder to mark pronouns for any specific number between 1 and 12 than it would be to just mark a generic plural. All those numbers would be simple monosyllabic affixes. There could then be a "greater plural" for any number above 12. It would probably be helpful to have at least one generic plural marker to use when the exact number was unknown or irrelevant.

Pronouns also have a subordinate form for use in subordinate clauses. This is used to show agreement with the subordinate form of verbs. A minor redundancy to aid parsing. This subordinate form is distinct from the fourth person.
prettydragoon wrote:Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate).
What constitutes "rational"? I like that gender only affects the third person. That seems logical to me.
Englishcanbepolysynthetictoo <--------- All one word!
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22
Location: Third star on the left, straight on till tiffin
Contact:

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by prettydragoon »

Sasquatch wrote:I have proximal/distal distinction in the first and second persons as well as the third. These are mainly literary devices that allow authors to distance their egos from their work and to address readers in a more generic fashion.
That sounds like a neat idea.
prettydragoon wrote:Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate).
What constitutes "rational"? I like that gender only affects the third person. That seems logical to me.
Rational gender includes sapient beings:
  • persons, including sapient galactics
  • gods and spirits
  • planets, including the sun and the moon
  • personifications of concepts such as obedience, bravery, the nation
Personifications of objects, such as ships, are seen as animals, so they have feminine gender.
Image
♀♥♀
What is this, how you say, Rireinutire?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, where 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, i.e. for forming certain statements in the passive voice) and six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative, with instrumental possibly joining them at some point). 1st-3rd person pronouns exist for singular, dual and plural numbers. Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) and noun class (animate, inanimate, and abstract) in all three numbers, and first-person pronouns by clusivity in the dual and plural. All in all, that's... 162 personal pronouns, possibly about to become 189.
I feel I may have gone a little overboard at some stage.
IIRC Fijian has 150 personal pronouns, so ANADAAB (A Natlang Already Does Almost As Bad) even if not ANADEW.

Sasquatch wrote:Thanks for this thread. You've shown me that pronouns don't have to be monosyllabic. I've had a bit of a mental block about that.
IIRC Fijian has some pronouns that are two (prosodic) feet long. That's got to be at least two syllables even if they're both heavy; it might be three syllables if two of them are light -- I don't actually remember Fijian's prosody.
So IMO a natlang (namely, Fijian) already does almost as bad as the engelangish sketchlang I put in my first post (it's obviously not a whole language, it's just the independent personal pronouns -- not distinguished by case or gender).


Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (.... 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, ....) .... Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) ....
Isn't that an unusual use of the term "fourth person"?

Is there a grammar of a natlang in which some grammarian has used "fourth person" thusly?

Also, isn't it usual for the term "fourth person" to be used for the obviative, by writers who use the term "fourth person" when writing about 'langs that have obviatives?

I'd think that if a natlang had both obviatives and long-distance reflexives (or long-distance anaphora), (or, maybe, both obviatives and logophoric pronouns), that would be when a writer might use the term "fourth person" to mean something other than "obviative".

When I first came up with that 73-pronoun engelang-like system in the first post in this thread, I was talking to a conlanger whose conlang distinguished between
  • "licensed overhearers" (3rd person), that is, people who weren't being addressed but were present and who would be expected to remember the conversation but not ordinarily say or do anything about it;
  • and people who weren't present or weren't known to be present or were "unlicensed overhearers" (4th person).
So you wouldn't be the first conlanger to use "4th person" to mean something it doesn't often mean in grammars of natlangs.
I imagine that when you post your grammar, you will probably explain that clearly and with several good examples.

prettydragoon wrote:.... Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate). ....
Normally the "rational" gender consists of beings who can use language.
It's used to distinguish healthy adult humans from, mostly, babies and infants.
Deaf-mutes, idiots, people who've suffered strokes, and foreigners who haven't yet learned the language, people whose speech-producing apparatus has been severely damaged, etc., might also be considered non-rational, depending on the language and its culture.

It looks like you are using it to mean, really, beings who can reason. Or, at least, beings who can know (sapient beings). But why does your culture think stars and planets can reason? Or know?

What makes a person be feminine instead of rational, or rational instead of feminine?
Or, for that matter, masculine instead of rational, or rational instead of masculine?

"Inanimate" usually means without linguistically-relevant volition; without will; without the ability to have control of an activity described in a clause. "Inanimates" frequently can't be "agents", at least not the same way animates can; an inanimate agent is often called a "force" instead of an "agent".

Are all rational beings also animate in your 'lang?
What about male marihuana plants and female marihuana plants?
Are they inanimate yet masculine or inanimate yet feminine or what?

Of course not everything in every gender is going to be there for semantic reasons; but each gender (in some languages, every gender but one, the "default gender") will have a "semantic core" of nouns that belong because their meanings match the meaning of the gender. (Other members --- if there are any, and there usually are --- will belong because they sound like they belong there, or because they decline as if they belong there.)


Sasquatch wrote:I have proximal/distal distinction in the first and second persons as well as the third.
I can easily see good use for a proximal vs distal (or even proximal vs medial vs distal) distinction in 2nd person; but I don't see it for first person.
Would you use a distal first person pronoun to translate REM's "That's Me In The Corner"?

Sasquatch wrote:I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of distinguishing between plural combinations, ie;
1s+2s
vs
1s+2p
vs
1p+2s
vs
1p+2p
I can't logically support the notion of a non-singular 1st person, except as an abbreviation for 1st+2nd or 1st+3rd or 1st+2nd+3rd. To me there is always only one speaker. Even when singing an anthem in the choir, or praying in unison, or responding to a responsive reading, etc., it is essentially several individuals all saying the same thing separately, though at the same time and in the same place and to the same addressee.
The EUROTYP database points out that for some languages, including some European languages, 1st-person-inclusive-dual (your "1s+2s") acts very much like a singular instead of like a dual.

If you read the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Number by Greville G. Corbett, and Person by Anna Siewierska, you'll see that, if we assume an inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1st-person-nonsingular, and only Singular Dual and Plural as numbers, at most the following combinations of person, number, and clusivity are distinguishable:
  • Singluar:
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dual:
    • 1+2
    • 1+3
    • 2+2
    • 2+3
    • 3+3
  • Plural:
    • 1+2+2+...
    • 1+2+3+...
    • 1+3+3+...
    • 2+2+2+...
    • 2+2+3+...
    • 2+3+3+...
    • 3+3+3+...
We could equally well order them thus:
  • 1st Person:
    • Exclusive:
      • 1
      • 1+3
      • 1+3+3+...
    • Inclusive:
      • 1+2
      • 1+2+2+...
      • 1+2+3+...
  • 2nd Person:
    • Exclusive:
      • 2
      • 2+2
      • 2+2+2+...
    • Inclusive:
      • 2+3
      • 2+2+3+...
      • 2+3+3+...
  • 3rd Person:
    • 3
    • 3+3
    • 3+3+3+...
Some languages do indeed distinguish all fifteen of those combinations, but many conflate some of them.

(If a language has a trial number or a fourth person or both, presumably there could be other combinations maximally distinguishable.)
Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, where 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, i.e. for forming certain statements in the passive voice) and six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative, with instrumental possibly joining them at some point). 1st-3rd person pronouns exist for singular, dual and plural numbers. Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) and noun class (animate, inanimate, and abstract) in all three numbers, and first-person pronouns by clusivity in the dual and plural. All in all, that's... 162 personal pronouns, possibly about to become 189.
I feel I may have gone a little overboard at some stage.
IIRC Fijian has 150 personal pronouns, so ANADAAB (A Natlang Already Does Almost As Bad) even if not ANADEW.

Sasquatch wrote:Thanks for this thread. You've shown me that pronouns don't have to be monosyllabic. I've had a bit of a mental block about that.
IIRC Fijian has some pronouns that are two (prosodic) feet long. That's got to be at least two syllables even if they're both heavy; it might be three syllables if two of them are light -- I don't actually remember Fijian's prosody.
So IMO a natlang (namely, Fijian) already does almost as bad as the engelangish sketchlang I put in my first post (it's obviously not a whole language, it's just the independent personal pronouns -- not distinguished by case or gender).


Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (.... 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, ....) .... Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) ....
Isn't that an unusual use of the term "fourth person"?

Is there a grammar of a natlang in which some grammarian has used "fourth person" thusly?

Also, isn't it usual for the term "fourth person" to be used for the obviative, by writers who use the term "fourth person" when writing about 'langs that have obviatives?

I'd think that if a natlang had both obviatives and long-distance reflexives (or long-distance anaphora), (or, maybe, both obviatives and logophoric pronouns), that would be when a writer might use the term "fourth person" to mean something other than "obviative".

When I first came up with that 73-pronoun engelang-like system in the first post in this thread, I was talking to a conlanger whose conlang distinguished between
  • "licensed overhearers" (3rd person), that is, people who weren't being addressed but were present and who would be expected to remember the conversation but not ordinarily say or do anything about it;
  • and people who weren't present or weren't known to be present or were "unlicensed overhearers" (4th person).
So you wouldn't be the first conlanger to use "4th person" to mean something it doesn't often mean in grammars of natlangs.
I imagine that when you post your grammar, you will probably explain that clearly and with several good examples.

prettydragoon wrote:.... Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate). ....
Normally the "rational" gender consists of beings who can use language.
It's used to distinguish healthy adult humans from, mostly, babies and infants.
Deaf-mutes, idiots, people who've suffered strokes, and foreigners who haven't yet learned the language, people whose speech-producing apparatus has been severely damaged, etc., might also be considered non-rational, depending on the language and its culture.

It looks like you are using it to mean, really, beings who can reason. Or, at least, beings who can know (sapient beings). But why does your culture think stars and planets can reason? Or know?

What makes a person be feminine instead of rational, or rational instead of feminine?
Or, for that matter, masculine instead of rational, or rational instead of masculine?

"Inanimate" usually means without linguistically-relevant volition; without will; without the ability to have control of an activity described in a clause. "Inanimates" frequently can't be "agents", at least not the same way animates can; an inanimate agent is often called a "force" instead of an "agent".

Are all rational beings also animate in your 'lang?
What about male marihuana plants and female marihuana plants?
Are they inanimate yet masculine or inanimate yet feminine or what?

Of course not everything in every gender is going to be there for semantic reasons; but each gender (in some languages, every gender but one, the "default gender") will have a "semantic core" of nouns that belong because their meanings match the meaning of the gender. (Other members --- if there are any, and there usually are --- will belong because they sound like they belong there, or because they decline as if they belong there.)


Sasquatch wrote:I have proximal/distal distinction in the first and second persons as well as the third.
I can easily see good use for a proximal vs distal (or even proximal vs medial vs distal) distinction in 2nd person; but I don't see it for first person.
Would you use a distal first person pronoun to translate REM's "That's Me In The Corner"?

Sasquatch wrote:I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of distinguishing between plural combinations, ie;
1s+2s
vs
1s+2p
vs
1p+2s
vs
1p+2p
I can't logically support the notion of a non-singular 1st person, except as an abbreviation for 1st+2nd or 1st+3rd or 1st+2nd+3rd. To me there is always only one speaker. Even when singing an anthem in the choir, or praying in unison, or responding to a responsive reading, etc., it is essentially several individuals all saying the same thing separately, though at the same time and in the same place and to the same addressee.
The EUROTYP database points out that for some languages, including some European languages, 1st-person-inclusive-dual (your "1s+2s") acts very much like a singular instead of like a dual.

If you read the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Number by Greville G. Corbett, and Person by Anna Siewierska, you'll see that, if we assume an inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1st-person-nonsingular, and only Singular Dual and Plural as numbers, at most the following combinations of person, number, and clusivity are distinguishable:
  • Singluar:
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dual:
    • 1+2
    • 1+3
    • 2+2
    • 2+3
    • 3+3
  • Plural:
    • 1+2+2+...
    • 1+2+3+...
    • 1+3+3+...
    • 2+2+2+...
    • 2+2+3+...
    • 2+3+3+...
    • 3+3+3+...
We could equally well order them thus:
  • 1st Person:
    • Exclusive:
      • 1
      • 1+3
      • 1+3+3+...
    • Inclusive:
      • 1+2
      • 1+2+2+...
      • 1+2+3+...
  • 2nd Person:
    • Exclusive:
      • 2
      • 2+2
      • 2+2+2+...
    • Inclusive:
      • 2+3
      • 2+2+3+...
      • 2+3+3+...
  • 3rd Person:
    • 3
    • 3+3
    • 3+3+3+...
Some languages do indeed distinguish all fifteen of those combinations, but many conflate some of them.

(If a language has a trial number or a fourth person or both, presumably there could be other combinations maximally distinguishable.)
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 27 Aug 2013 02:41, edited 1 time in total.
Sasquatch
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 182
Joined: 30 Jun 2013 00:24

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Sasquatch »

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sasquatch wrote:I have proximal/distal distinction in the first and second persons as well as the third.
I can easily see good use for a proximal vs distal (or even proximal vs medial vs distal) distinction in 2nd person; but I don't see it for first person.
Would you use a distal first person pronoun to translate REM's "That's Me In The Corner"?
No. As I mentioned in the post, the distal "I" would mainly be a literary device. It would be the equivalent of "we" as often used by authors when they want to say "I" but don't want to make themselves the center of attention.

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sasquatch wrote:I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of distinguishing between plural combinations, ie;
1s+2s
vs
1s+2p
vs
1p+2s
vs
1p+2p
I can't logically support the notion of a non-singular 1st person, except as an abbreviation for 1st+2nd or 1st+3rd or 1st+2nd+3rd. To me there is always only one speaker. Even when singing an anthem in the choir, or praying in unison, or responding to a responsive reading, etc., it is essentially several individuals all saying the same thing separately, though at the same time and in the same place and to the same addressee.
The EUROTYP database points out that for some languages, including some European languages, 1st-person-inclusive-dual (your "1s+2s") acts very much like a singular instead of like a dual.
I should have clarified that I was using "1p" as shorthand for 1+3. So 1p+2s would convey the idea of a group with two differing degrees of commitativeness(?). Sort of "he's (3s) with us (1s+3s/p)", implying that "us" is a tightly-bound unit and that "he" is not entirely part of that unit. Or 1+3+3.
So you could look at the 1p as a sort of unspecified number. It might be dual, "my wife and I", it might be trial, "my wife, my child, and I". Context would decide exactly how big the 1p was.

I also have a non-singular 1st person as a literary device. I stole the idea from another thread on pronouns. The plural 1st allows coauthors to write as one while informing the reader they are several. Or it allows a single author to acknowledge contributions to the work by those other than himself. I like this because I agree there is always only one speaker. So, to me, it sounds goofy for a person to say "we think...." But very often the words of the speaker are not entirely his own. I consider language to be thought manifested. So a plural "I" makes perfect sense when the speaker is uttering thoughts other than his own. Especially in written communication.
Englishcanbepolysynthetictoo <--------- All one word!
User avatar
Sangfroidish
greek
greek
Posts: 837
Joined: 29 Mar 2013 17:59
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Sangfroidish »

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (.... 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, ....) .... Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) ....
Isn't that an unusual use of the term "fourth person"?
Most probably, yes. I'm just not especially sure what to call it :v Usually when I use it in translations I just gloss it as "null argument" or similar.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

Sangfroidish wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
Sangfroidish wrote:Vorýntel pronouns exist in four persons (.... 4th is a sort of dummy pronoun that's just slapped down wherever a verb needs an argument grammatically but you don't want one semantically, ....) .... Third person pronouns are distinguished by salience (proximate and obviative) ....
Isn't that an unusual use of the term "fourth person"?
Most probably, yes. I'm just not especially sure what to call it :v Usually when I use it in translations I just gloss it as "null argument" or similar.
It seems to me that it's an "indefinite person", like French's "on" (also sometimes like English's "one").
If so, then, it's really not that unusual to call it a "fourth person", though I wouldn't do so in a language that also has some other thing that's often called a "fourth person", like obviative pronouns or long-distance reflexive anaphors.

Nishnaabemwin (Ottawa/Ojibwe/Algnoquian) has some nouns that are obligatorily possessed ("dependent nouns"). It's ungrammatical to mention one of them without also mentioning its possessor. But often one doesn't know its possessor; there's a set of forms for such nouns possessed by an indefinite possessor.
Also, if one such noun is obviative, and its possessor is not first nor second nor proximative third person, the possessor can be "further obviative" aka "fifth person"; though that's not a "full" grammatical person in Nishnaabemwin, since it occurs only in the genitive in Nishnaabemwin.
Might your language have a full "fifth person", that can occur in several cases including the nominative or ergative case? Might the forms for "further obviative" and the forms for "indefinite person" be homophonous in your 'lang?


Sasquatch wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:Would you use a distal first person pronoun to translate REM's "That's Me In The Corner"?

No. As I mentioned in the post, the distal "I" would mainly be a literary device. It would be the equivalent of "we" as often used by authors when they want to say "I" but don't want to make themselves the center of attention.
The "editorial 'we'". I think I get it.

Sasquatch wrote:I should have clarified that I was using "1p" as shorthand for 1+3. So 1p+2s would convey the idea of a group with two differing degrees of commitativeness(?). Sort of "he's (3s) with us (1s+3s/p)", implying that "us" is a tightly-bound unit
....
manifested. So a plural "I" makes perfect sense when the speaker is uttering thoughts other than his own. Especially in written communication.
That's a very clear explanation! I agree that when you eventually publish you 'lang's entire grammar that clarification ought to be part of it. Thanks!
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 15 Sep 2021 15:46, edited 2 times in total.
Sasquatch
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 182
Joined: 30 Jun 2013 00:24

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Sasquatch »

eldin raigmore wrote:
Sasquatch wrote:No. As I mentioned in the post, the distal "I" would mainly be a literary device. It would be the equivalent of "we" as often used by authors when they want to say "I" but don't want to make themselves the center of attention.
The "editorial 'we'". I think I get it.
"Editorial 'we'" is the label I couldn't find. Thanks.
eldin raigmore wrote:That's a very clear explanation! I agree that when you eventually publish you 'lang's entire grammar that clarification ought to be part of it. Thanks!
I sincerely hope you are not holding your breath. To say my progress is glacial would be optimistic. Paralysis by analysis.
Englishcanbepolysynthetictoo <--------- All one word!
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22
Location: Third star on the left, straight on till tiffin
Contact:

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by prettydragoon »

eldin raigmore wrote:
prettydragoon wrote:.... Third person has separate forms for each of the four genders (rational, feminine, masculine, and inanimate). ....
Normally the "rational" gender consists of beings who can use language.
It's used to distinguish healthy adult humans from, mostly, babies and infants.
Deaf-mutes, idiots, people who've suffered strokes, and foreigners who haven't yet learned the language, people whose speech-producing apparatus has been severely damaged, etc., might also be considered non-rational, depending on the language and its culture.

It looks like you are using it to mean, really, beings who can reason. Or, at least, beings who can know (sapient beings). But why does your culture think stars and planets can reason? Or know?
When the planets seemed like lights in the sky that would move, apparently of their own volition, they were thought to be gods or spirits. Nowadays, even though planets are home to millions of persons, they are still rational gender.
eldin raigmore wrote:What makes a person be feminine instead of rational, or rational instead of feminine?
Or, for that matter, masculine instead of rational, or rational instead of masculine?
Feminine and masculine are used for animals. Other than in the specific context of procreation issues, it is highly insulting to refer to a person with a feminine pronoun. That would suggest she is as mindless as a beast. The males of the species are non-sapient, so they don't care what you call them, as long as they get plenty of food and exercise.

For most animals, the default gender is feminine. Default-masculine animals tend to be ones that have a reputation for aggression.
eldin raigmore wrote:"Inanimate" usually means without linguistically-relevant volition; without will; without the ability to have control of an activity described in a clause. "Inanimates" frequently can't be "agents", at least not the same way animates can; an inanimate agent is often called a "force" instead of an "agent".
I'm not sure there is a distinction in Rireinutire. A boulder can crush your foot with exactly the same syntax as a horse, even though she is animate but it is inanimate.
eldin raigmore wrote:Are all rational beings also animate in your 'lang?
What about male marihuana plants and female marihuana plants?
Are they inanimate yet masculine or inanimate yet feminine or what?
Yes, all rational beings are animate. The Rireinukave haven't come across any sessile sapients. Sessile life forms are by default inanimate, whether they actually happen to be female or male. Most nouns are in fact inanimate.
eldin raigmore wrote:Of course not everything in every gender is going to be there for semantic reasons; but each gender (in some languages, every gender but one, the "default gender") will have a "semantic core" of nouns that belong because their meanings match the meaning of the gender. (Other members --- if there are any, and there usually are --- will belong because they sound like they belong there, or because they decline as if they belong there.)
The top three genders in the animacy hierarchy of Rireinutire do basically consist of nouns that belong there "naturally". Everything else is inanimate.
Image
♀♥♀
What is this, how you say, Rireinutire?
User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 2785
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Click »

Kaıpó has a minimal pronoun system.

There are two personal pronouns: ka and po. Ka is the speaker pronoun (1P), and po is the non-speaker pronoun. The latter pronoun is also used as a general-purpose demonstrative.

In addition to that, Kaıpó has two phoric pronouns: ca and .
Ca refers to the subject of a previous clause, while refers back to the object of a previous clause.

That's all. [xD]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

prettydragoon wrote:....
When the planets seemed like lights in the sky that would move, apparently of their own volition, they were thought to be gods or spirits. Nowadays, even though planets are home to millions of persons, they are still rational gender.
....
Feminine and masculine are used for animals. Other than in the specific context of procreation issues, it is highly insulting to refer to a person with a feminine pronoun. That would suggest she is as mindless as a beast. The males of the species are non-sapient, so they don't care what you call them, as long as they get plenty of food and exercise.
For most animals, the default gender is feminine. Default-masculine animals tend to be ones that have a reputation for aggression.
....
I'm not sure there is a distinction in Rireinutire. A boulder can crush your foot with exactly the same syntax as a horse, even though she is animate but it is inanimate.
....
Yes, all rational beings are animate. The Rireinukave haven't come across any sessile sapients. Sessile life forms are by default inanimate, whether they actually happen to be female or male. Most nouns are in fact inanimate.
....
The top three genders in the animacy hierarchy of Rireinutire do basically consist of nouns that belong there "naturally". Everything else is inanimate.
Thanks, @prettydragoon! That clears that up completely (I think; I'm an expert at getting confused, so I may get confused again some time in the future).

About the hierarchy:
Is it Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate, or
is it Rational > Masculine > Feminine > Inanimate?

I ask because it would seem that if "Masculine" is quasi- or semi- -synonymous with "aggressive", "masculine" animals are likelier to be agents than "feminine" animals. That is, if a transitive clause involves no rationals and no inanimates, but does involve a masculine and a feminine, if one is the agent and the other is the patient, then the masculine one is likelier to be the agent and the feminine one is likelier to be the patient. Or so I would guess.

Naturally a female rational is more agent-capable than a nonrational male.

Also:
Does the hierarchy have any grammatical effects, whether morphological or syntactic?
Is there any marked grammatical or morphosyntactic difference between direct clauses, where the agent is higher than the patient, and inverse clauses, where the patient is higher than the agent?
What type of system of grammatical voice does your conlang have? Is grammatical voice unnecessary because all the work it would do is accomplished by the case system instead?
Are there ever any problems when the agent and patient have the same person, the same number, and the same gender? If so, how are they obviated? Maybe they're already obviated by the case system.

Click wrote:Kaıpó has a minimal pronoun system.
There are two personal pronouns: ka and po. Ka is the speaker pronoun
(1P), and po is the non-speaker pronoun. The latter pronoun is also used as a general-purpose demonstrative.
In addition to that, Kaıpó has two phoric pronouns: ca and .
Ca refers to the subject of a previous clause, while refers back to the object of a previous clause.
Thanks, @Click! That's pretty minimal, alright.
How well does it work in actual practice? Can you foresee any difficulties?
User avatar
Yačay256
greek
greek
Posts: 648
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:57
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by Yačay256 »

Click wrote:Kaıpó has a minimal pronoun system.

There are two personal pronouns: ka and po. Ka is the speaker pronoun (1P), and po is the non-speaker pronoun. The latter pronoun is also used as a general-purpose demonstrative.

In addition to that, Kaıpó has two phoric pronouns: ca and .
Ca refers to the subject of a previous clause, while refers back to the object of a previous clause.

That's all. [xD]
IIRC, Dyirbal also lacks third person pronouns, though maybe the third person is simply implied (Dyirbal is non-configurational).

Well, here are the sixteen independent personal pronominals of Pyeom:

Exophoric Rational ("rational" indicating one or more sapient beings/people and/or entities with high intelligence): EXCL, INCL, 2, 3=Ñay, nmày, mé, leòv=/ɲāj ŋ͡mɒ̀j mé lə̀v/
Endophoric Rational: EXCL, INCL, 2, 3=Neo, gà, má, peur=/nə̄ ŋɑ̀ mɒ́ pʰʉ̄ɻ/
Exophoric common person for the other four genders: Abstract, artificial, animate, inanimate=Ƒél, lòh, ɂà, ka=/ɸél lò̤ ʔɐ̀ kʰɑ̄/
The same series as directly above, respectively, only endophoric instead of exophoric: Fer, róɂ, ɂeùs, keuh=/fēɻ ɻó' ʔɨ̀s kʰɨ̤̄/
¡Mñíĝínxàʋày!
¡[ˈmí.ɲ̟ōj.ˌɣín.ʃà.βä́j]!
2-POSS.EXCL.ALIEN-COMP-friend.comrade
Hello, colleagues!
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22
Location: Third star on the left, straight on till tiffin
Contact:

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by prettydragoon »

eldin raigmore wrote:
prettydragoon wrote:....
When the planets seemed like lights in the sky that would move, apparently of their own volition, they were thought to be gods or spirits. Nowadays, even though planets are home to millions of persons, they are still rational gender.
....
Feminine and masculine are used for animals. Other than in the specific context of procreation issues, it is highly insulting to refer to a person with a feminine pronoun. That would suggest she is as mindless as a beast. The males of the species are non-sapient, so they don't care what you call them, as long as they get plenty of food and exercise.
For most animals, the default gender is feminine. Default-masculine animals tend to be ones that have a reputation for aggression.
....
I'm not sure there is a distinction in Rireinutire. A boulder can crush your foot with exactly the same syntax as a horse, even though she is animate but it is inanimate.
....
Yes, all rational beings are animate. The Rireinukave haven't come across any sessile sapients. Sessile life forms are by default inanimate, whether they actually happen to be female or male. Most nouns are in fact inanimate.
....
The top three genders in the animacy hierarchy of Rireinutire do basically consist of nouns that belong there "naturally". Everything else is inanimate.
Thanks, @prettydragoon! That clears that up completely (I think; I'm an expert at getting confused, so I may get confused again some time in the future).

About the hierarchy:
Is it Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate, or
is it Rational > Masculine > Feminine > Inanimate?

I ask because it would seem that if "Masculine" is quasi- or semi- -synonymous with "aggressive", "masculine" animals are likelier to be agents than "feminine" animals. That is, if a transitive clause involves no rationals and no inanimates, but does involve a masculine and a feminine, if one is the agent and the other is the patient, then the masculine one is likelier to be the agent and the feminine one is likelier to be the patient. Or so I would guess.

Naturally a female rational is more agent-capable than a nonrational male.
By an absolutely astonishing coincidence (considering that the Rireinukave are all female) feminine outranks masculine.
So it's Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate.
eldin raigmore wrote:Also:
Does the hierarchy have any grammatical effects, whether morphological or syntactic?
Is there any marked grammatical or morphosyntactic difference between direct clauses, where the agent is higher than the patient, and inverse clauses, where the patient is higher than the agent?
The main effect is with mixed-gender groups of referents. They take the pronoun of the most senior noun present. So if you see Dr. Destruction coming at you with her unstoppable robot army, you call them he, even if Dr. Destruction is the only sapient present. (That's actually the only effect I have considered.)
eldin raigmore wrote:What type of system of grammatical voice does your conlang have? Is grammatical voice unnecessary because all the work it would do is accomplished by the case system instead?
I'm dithering about voice. A passive or mediopassive might well be nice to have. But Rireinutire is - I think - pro-drop, so maybe I could just omit the subject/agent from an active sentence and call that passive.
eldin raigmore wrote:Are there ever any problems when the agent and patient have the same person, the same number, and the same gender? If so, how are they obviated? Maybe they're already obviated by the case system.
At least some of the problems are obviated by the use of the word huno 'one's own' where the patient is or belongs to the agent.
Muñaro herenari huno kaneuhina potakive:
Dr. Destruction punished her (own) minion.
ha hano kaneuhina potakive:
She punished her (somebody else's) minion.
ha hamu potakive:
She beat her.
ha hunomu potakive:
She beat herself.
Image
♀♥♀
What is this, how you say, Rireinutire?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

prettydragoon wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:About the hierarchy:
Is it Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate, or
is it Rational > Masculine > Feminine > Inanimate?
I ask because it would seem that if "Masculine" is quasi- or semi- -synonymous with "aggressive", "masculine" animals are likelier to be agents than "feminine" animals. That is, if a transitive clause involves no rationals and no inanimates, but does involve a masculine and a feminine, if one is the agent and the other is the patient, then the masculine one is likelier to be the agent and the feminine one is likelier to be the patient. Or so I would guess.
Naturally a female rational is more agent-capable than a nonrational male.

By an absolutely astonishing coincidence (considering that the Rireinukave are all female) feminine outranks masculine.
So it's Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate.
I thought of that, and that's one reason I asked; but: ---
1. They're all Rational, not Feminine, right? So why would the fact that they're female make Feminine outrank Masculine, when they're Rational females, not Feminine females?

2. The idea that males are more aggressive than females -- at least among species with internal fertilization, or land-dwelling species -- is probably mostly incorrect.
Males tend to be more "aggressive" (in the sense of "likelier to fight") towards each other, that is, toward other males of their own species; but such aggression tends to be limited. They fight for the right to be some females' exclusive mate; and/or for territory; and/or for dominance. Once they've achieved their goal they tend to leave off fighting; they have no need to kill an opponent who no longer obstructs them from their goal.
Females OTOH are usually fighting to feed or defend their young. If a female hears a distress call from her offspring she will probably turn and make a direct run toward the offspring, doing her best to cripple if not kill any living animal in her path on the offchance that it might be the threat her offspring is frightened by.
And Neuters are really the most aggressive of all; they very well might kamikaze.
Some "neuters" or "sterile females" of some hymenoptera have barbed stingers which mean they die if they sting. (Though the ones who have the barbed stingers also are likelier to try to be sure their target is really an enemy rather than just something that unfortunately got in the way.)
The neuters (or "sterile females") of certain (other) hymenoptera have scent glands next to their venom glands, that manufacture a pheromone that gets released only in case the insect is wounded near there. Any hive-mate neuter who smells this scent will head directly toward the source, stinging any animal it meets on the way.

Maybe among your Rireinukave the non-rational Masculine males are more aggressive than the Rational non-feminine females; probably they are to other male Rireinukave, and perhaps the Rational females who speak the language are likelier to have noticed the male Rireinukave behavior than the behavior of males of other species, and likelier to have noticed behavior toward other Rireinukave than toward members of other species. So they might indeed think "(our Masculine) males are more aggressive than (our Rational) females".

But why would they think males-in-general are more aggressive than non-Rational, Feminine females-in-general?



Anyway, I can't make up the explanation; I need you to do it (if you want to and whenever you get around to it).
I have proposed some possible explanations; maybe the one you pick is one I've proposed, or maybe you'll pick one I never mentioned or never even thought of.
Also, I've asked several questions. I assume they have actual answers, or at least that you will make up actual answers at some point; and I hope you'll feel like posting them. I didn't ask them rhetorically, nor to make some kind of point.

I enjoy your Rireinukave and their language and look forward to hearing more about them, though I don't intend to rush you.


prettydragoon wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:Also:
Does the hierarchy have any grammatical effects, whether morphological or syntactic?
Is there any marked grammatical or morphosyntactic difference between direct clauses, where the agent is higher than the patient, and inverse clauses, where the patient is higher than the agent?
The main effect is with mixed-gender groups of referents. They take the pronoun of the most senior noun present. So if you see Dr. Destruction coming at you with her unstoppable robot army, you call them he, even if Dr. Destruction is the only sapient present. (That's actually the only effect I have considered.)
What do you mean by "most senior"?
I had assumed you meant;
You use a Rational pronoun if the group contains at least one Rational individual;
otherwise, you use a Feminine pronoun if the group contains at least one Feminine individual (but does not contain any Rational(s));
otherwise, you use a Masculine pronoun if the group contains at least one Masculine individual (but does not contain any Rational(s) nor any Feminine(s)).
(You use an Inanimate pronoun only if the group is unmixed Inanimate.)

That is what you meant, isn't it?
he is Rireinutire's (your 'lang's) 3rd person Rational Plural pronoun, right?

What gender and what sex did you mean Dr. Destructo to be?
Just a Rational sex-non-specific (probably female)?
Or maybe a male Rational?


prettydragoon wrote:I'm dithering about voice. A passive or mediopassive might well be nice to have. But Rireinutire is - I think - pro-drop, so maybe I could just omit the subject/agent from an active sentence and call that passive.
"Mediopassive" exists only in certain Indo-European languages IRL; and even in theory could only exist in languages with Middle and Passive voices in which, for certain aspect-mood-polarity-tense combinations, for most (or at least many) verbs, "middle" voice and "passive" voice are (have become?) homophonous.
Is Rireinutire supposed to be Indo-European?
Whether it is or it isn't I-E, is it supposed to be a good candidate for having a "mediopassive" voice?
"Middle" voice always begins, diachronicallly, as a way to distinguish those verbs which are "naturally" reflexive, from those which just happen to be, in this instance, relflexive.
Is Rireinutire supposed to be a good candidate for having a middle voice?
In some languages, for some verbs, if one merely omits the patient, the verb is assumed to be reflexive;
e.g. "I've bathed the baby" vs. "I've bathed", or
"Our son shaved the cat" vs "Our son shaved".

prettydragoon wrote:At least some of the problems are obviated by the use of the word huno 'one's own' where the patient is or belongs to the agent.
Muñaro herenari huno kaneuhina potakive:
Dr. Destruction punished her (own) minion.
ha hano kaneuhina potakive:
She punished her (somebody else's) minion.
ha hamu potakive:
She beat her.
ha hunomu potakive:
She beat herself.
That is tres cool! [B)]
Thanks, pretty dragoon!



@Yačay256: Thanks to you, also. I may respond in detail later, but I'd better post what I've written to prettydragoon now so I won't lose it all.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 05 Oct 2013 22:48, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

Yačay256 wrote:Well, here are the sixteen independent personal pronominals of Pyeom:

Exophoric Rational ("rational" indicating one or more sapient beings/people and/or entities with high intelligence): EXCL, INCL, 2, 3=Ñay, nmày, mé, leòv=/ɲāj ŋ͡mɒ̀j mé lə̀v/
Endophoric Rational: EXCL, INCL, 2, 3=Neo, gà, má, peur=/nə̄ ŋɑ̀ mɒ́ pʰʉ̄ɻ/
Exophoric common person for the other four genders: Abstract, artificial, animate, inanimate=Ƒél, lòh, ɂà, ka=/ɸél lò̤ ʔɐ̀ kʰɑ̄/
The same series as directly above, respectively, only endophoric instead of exophoric: Fer, róɂ, ɂeùs, keuh=/fēɻ ɻó' ʔɨ̀s kʰɨ̤̄/
Is there a place I (or we) can see this laid out more systematically and more unambiguously?
Thanks.
User avatar
prettydragoon
sinic
sinic
Posts: 442
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 10:22
Location: Third star on the left, straight on till tiffin
Contact:

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by prettydragoon »

eldin raigmore wrote:
prettydragoon wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:About the hierarchy:
Is it Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate, or
is it Rational > Masculine > Feminine > Inanimate?
I ask because it would seem that if "Masculine" is quasi- or semi- -synonymous with "aggressive", "masculine" animals are likelier to be agents than "feminine" animals. That is, if a transitive clause involves no rationals and no inanimates, but does involve a masculine and a feminine, if one is the agent and the other is the patient, then the masculine one is likelier to be the agent and the feminine one is likelier to be the patient. Or so I would guess.
Naturally a female rational is more agent-capable than a nonrational male.

By an absolutely astonishing coincidence (considering that the Rireinukave are all female) feminine outranks masculine.
So it's Rational > Feminine > Masculine > Inanimate.
I thought of that, and that's one reason I asked; but: ---
1. They're all Rational, not Feminine, right? So why would the fact that they're female make Feminine outrank Masculine, when they're Rational females, not Feminine females?
This is obviously all speculation, because there is no documentation surviving from the time the Rireinutire gender system arose, nor is there much (if any) native speculation on its basis. It seems to be one of those things that are just so obviously the way things are and ought to be that it is very hard to even imagine that it could be differently.

But I think it's based on an analogy from persons to animals. Persons can think and speak, their males can not. It's true that animals can't think or speak, nor can their males, so in that sense animal females and males are equal. But just as persons mate with males to have babies, so too do animals mate with males to have baby animals. And there would be a natural predisposition to consider animals-that-procreate-like-persons more "worthy" or "advanced" or "noble" than animals-that-procreate-like-males. Most large land animals are mammals, just like Rireinukave, so that would be an easy analogy to make.
eldin raigmore wrote:2. The idea that males are more aggressive than females -- at least among species with internal fertilization, or land-dwelling species -- is probably mostly incorrect.
Males tend to be more "aggressive" (in the sense of "likelier to fight") towards each other, that is, toward other males of their own species; but such aggression tends to be limited. They fight for the right to be some females' exclusive mate; and/or for territory; and/or for dominance. Once they've achieved their goal they tend to leave off fighting; they have no need to kill an opponent who no longer obstructs them from their goal.
Females OTOH are usually fighting to feed or defend their young. If a female hears a distress call from her offspring she will probably turn and make a direct run toward the offspring, doing her best to cripple if not kill any living animal in her path on the offchance that it might be the threat her offspring is frightened by.
And Neuters are really the most aggressive of all; they very well might kamikaze.
Some "neuters" or "sterile females" of some hymenoptera have barbed stingers which mean they die if they sting. (Though the ones who have the barbed stingers also are likelier to try to be sure their target is really an enemy rather than just something that unfortunately got in the way.)
The neuters (or "sterile females") of certain (other) hymenoptera have scent glands next to their venom glands, that manufacture a pheromone that gets released only in case the insect is wounded near there. Any hive-mate neuter who smells this scent will head directly toward the source, stinging any animal it meets on the way.
Science marches on, but language will preserve patterns of thought from earlier times. Times when the Mark I Eyeball was the finest precision instrument available, and the ways of your mothers and your mothers' mothers were taught them by Yuri the All-Mother herself, so that was the way the world worked.
eldin raigmore wrote:Maybe among your Rireinukave the non-rational Masculine males are more aggressive than the Rational non-feminine females; probably they are to other male Rireinukave, and perhaps the Rational females who speak the language are likelier to have noticed the male Rireinukave behavior than the behavior of males of other species, and likelier to have noticed behavior toward other Rireinukave than toward members of other species. So they might indeed think "(our Masculine) males are more aggressive than (our Rational) females".
Rireinukave males are aggressive enough towards each other and towards strangers. Confirmation bias will take care of the rest.
eldin raigmore wrote:But why would they think males-in-general are more aggressive than non-Rational, Feminine females-in-general?
Well, females fight for a purpose; males just fight each other. Obviously that means males are more aggressive. As to Rireinukave males in particular, everybody knows that if you leave two adult males together, you will lose at least one of them. Those brutes are vicious!

Of course, this from a people who beat each other with lengths of steel pipe for sport. So it isn't that aggressiveness would be a bad thing per se, only (what is seen as) mindless aggression.
eldin raigmore wrote:Anyway, I can't make up the explanation; I need you to do it (if you want to and whenever you get around to it).
I have proposed some possible explanations; maybe the one you pick is one I've proposed, or maybe you'll pick one I never mentioned or never even thought of.
Also, I've asked several questions. I assume they have actual answers, or at least that you will make up actual answers at some point; and I hope you'll feel like posting them. I didn't ask them rhetorically, nor to make some kind of point.

I enjoy your Rireinukave and their language and look forward to hearing more about them, though I don't intend to rush you.
Thank you! I like being challenged. It helps me explicate these details even to myself. Also, I need the outside impetus to put them into actual words; if I only work them out in my head and not write them down, they will vanish softly and suddenly away.
eldin raigmore wrote:
="prettydragoon"
eldin raigmore wrote:Also:
Does the hierarchy have any grammatical effects, whether morphological or syntactic?
Is there any marked grammatical or morphosyntactic difference between direct clauses, where the agent is higher than the patient, and inverse clauses, where the patient is higher than the agent?
The main effect is with mixed-gender groups of referents. They take the pronoun of the most senior noun present. So if you see Dr. Destruction coming at you with her unstoppable robot army, you call them he, even if Dr. Destruction is the only sapient present. (That's actually the only effect I have considered.)
What do you mean by "most senior"?
I had assumed you meant;
You use a Rational pronoun if the group contains at least one Rational individual;
otherwise, you use a Feminine pronoun if the group contains at least one Feminine individual (but does not contain any Rational(s));
otherwise, you use a Masculine pronoun if the group contains at least one Masculine individual (but does not contain any Rational(s) nor any Feminine(s)).
(You use an Inanimate pronoun only if the group is unmixed Inanimate.)

That is what you meant, isn't it?
Yes, exactly. That "most senior" was interference from Rireinutire grammar terminology, kanami 'oldest, ranking'.
eldin raigmore wrote:
is Rireinutire's (your 'lang's) 3rd person Rational Plural pronoun, right?

What gender and what sex did you mean Dr. Destructo to be?
Just a Rational sex-non-specific (probably female)?
Or maybe a male Rational?
Right. I was trying to come up with an exaggerated example, one Rational and ten million Inanimate nouns. Dr. Destruction would be Rational by gender (no comment on the thought processes of your typical mad scientist), her sex would be irrelevant (although as we are discussing Rireinukave, she would be presumed to be female; otherwise there would be sure to be some subtle mention of MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE!!!!! if she were explicitly male).
eldin raigmore wrote:
prettydragoon wrote:I'm dithering about voice. A passive or mediopassive might well be nice to have. But Rireinutire is - I think - pro-drop, so maybe I could just omit the subject/agent from an active sentence and call that passive.
"Mediopassive" exists only in certain Indo-European languages IRL; and even in theory could only exist in languages with Middle and Passive voices in which, for certain aspect-mood-polarity-tense combinations, for most (or at least many) verbs, "middle" voice and "passive" voice are (have become?) homophonous.
Is Rireinutire supposed to be Indo-European?
Whether it is or it isn't I-E, is it supposed to be a good candidate for having a "mediopassive" voice?
"Middle" voice always begins, diachronicallly, as a way to distinguish those verbs which are "naturally" reflexive, from those which just happen to be, in this instance, relflexive.
Is Rireinutire supposed to be a good candidate for having a middle voice?
In some languages, for some verbs, if one merely omits the patient, the verb is assumed to be reflexive;
e.g. "I've bathed the baby" vs. "I've bathed", or
"Our son shaved the cat" vs "Our son shaved".
Rireinutire is definitely not Indo-European. It must be admitted that the study of voices other than active and passive has been rather shamefully neglected, and even the passive has been studied rather passively desultorily.
Image
♀♥♀
What is this, how you say, Rireinutire?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Independent personal pronouns; mixed persons, various nu

Post by eldin raigmore »

prettydragoon wrote:.... (lots of good work) ....
[:)]
More later.
Post Reply