Nik Taylor wrote:

> Tom Wier wrote:
> > But then how does one classify the English use of "one"? It can refer
> > to something even more distant than a particular third person, i.e., *anyone*
> > who might be in that position
>
> In English, it's merely another third-person pronoun, "third-person
> indefinite" if you prefer.  If English had a "fourth person", there
> could be a "third person indefinite" and a "fourth person indefinite".
> Personally, I prefer the term "obviate", since "fourth person" sounds
> somehow unreal, like a "first person singular *inclusive*" ("I including
> you")

I'm not sure that that's what that would mean.  What I mean is this:
inclusivity or exclusivity by nature require that there be two things to
differentiate: either this or that, or both.  They can be parts of something
greater, though, as if one were to say that "part of me wants to go see the
movie, but another part wants to do my homework".

If you are talking about both parts, then you could indicate the
multifacetedness of yourself by having an exclusiveness marker
tacked onto the pronoun:

first person inclusive = all of me wants wants to see the movie / do my homework
first person exclusive = this one part of me wants to see the movie (but another
    part may not agree with this.

One is not, by the way, indicating schizophrenia by this:  one is only indicating
the fact that people are not always determinate (and also, BTW, scientists
have actually shown that the various brains that humans have, the palaeomammalian,
the reptilian, and so forth, can actually have different opinions, and so it would only
be an accurate representation of reality to indicate that with in- and exclusivity
markers).

So, to get back to the fourth person:  we could have something like this:

(a) first person: speaker and the spoken have a conversational identity (though
note that this does not necessitate physical identity -- as Locke said, a person
and a man do not have to be the same: a person could wake up in another
body, vice-versa mutatis mutandis etc...)
(b) second person: speaker and the spoken have near proximity conversationally,
though only relatively.
(c) third person:  a "third person", someone else other than the person being
spoken to (duh), but proximate.
(d) fourth person:  the obviative.
(e) fifth person: an individual, roughly corresponding to "one";  a person who is
being referenced by his position as a member of society.  Note that if you think
about it, any person beyond four would have to have a nonspecific meaning.
Part of the reason why I think it's hard to think of things like this is the same
reason why it's hard to think of more than four dimensions of space-time.

I think this shows how it's really a matter of personal deixis, as I said
previously.

Anyways, this is really great for my conlang!

          Com.   Frac.   Sing.     Pauc.     Plur.   Indef-fin.
1st  :   meos   meosti  meosia meospai meosi  meosnon
2ns :   teos     teosti    teosia  teospai   teosi    teosnon
3rd :   seos    seosti    seosia seospai   seosi   seosnon
*4th :  heos   heosti    heosia heospai  heosi   heosnon
*5th:   beos   beosti    beosia    beospai  beosi  beosnon

Of course, to all of these can be added gender markers.
Note that what I said about the parts of someone holding an
opinion would be important here, as the fractional number
could be used in addition to the inclusivity clitics -le/-ke.
At least for my language, anyways.  :)

[Getting off my soapbox now...]



=======================================================
Tom Wier <[log in to unmask]>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Ille se profecisse sciat cui Cicero valde placebit."
   - poster found on professor's door.
========================================================