Print

Print


On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:09:01 +0200, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Rhiemeier
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hallo!
>
>On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:47:17 +0200,
>Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I haven't yet made up numbers for Ayeri, just thinking about them.
>> LISTEN, JANKO GORENC!!! I CANNOT SEND YOU THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE I HAVE
>> NOT MADE THEM UP YET!!!!!! Well, here is the thread on the ZBB where I'm
>> discussing them. I know I'm stupid sometimes. My maths are always wrong
>> the first time as it seems.
>>
>>     http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=4253
>
>I have looked at it, and, the naturalist I am, don't find them
>appealing.  They look like something a 17th-century (or later)
>philosophical language inventor could have come up with, not like
>something that could have evolved in a natlang.

I know that. It was just an idea, but I guess I won't use it because of the
reasons you mentioned, too. The others on the board (SpaceDracula, Zompist)
also said that.

>And looking at your Ayeri grammar (to which I found a link in the
>ZBB discussion), I hit upon a somewhat bizarre phenomenon, namely
>an animate-inanimate distinction in 2nd person pronouns.  One doesn't
>often talk to inanimate objects; does one need special pronouns
>for this purpose?

No, you don't talk *to* them, but you can talk *about* them ... so I guess
it would have been better to have a 3rd person inanimate. Whoops!

-- Carsten