Print

Print


I may regret this, but this time I have answered Gleki
directly.  i promise the list, however, that I will not
enter into another boringly protracted exchange   :)

On 24/10/2015 09:37, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> 2015-10-24 10:54 GMT+03:00 R A Brown:
>
>> I do not see "pronoun" in the above and, indeed, I've
>> done a search of the whole document and cannot find
>> any instance of the word "pronoun" - so I'm somewhat
>> baffled.
>>
>
> The most common pronoun in world languages is "I"

It may or may not be; that IMO is not relevant.  Liva is a
*conlang*, and there are conlangs that do not have personal
pronouns.

I recall some guy way back in the Spring of 2007 complaining
that Classical Yiklamu did not have personal pronouns.  I
thought the author had made this choice deliberately - and
indeed he had.  As Claudio did not list a separate "pronoun"
category, I think it behoves anyone who claims Liva has a
*separate pronoun category* to prove the case.

> so here is the relevant part: me = the first person, "I,
> me, we"; me ├▒ca = "we"; me+[:believe>>] = "in my
> opinion"

With respect, I do not see the word "pronoun" there.  the
words you quote come under the category of _deictics_.
According to Trask:
{quote}
*deictic category*  _n_. Any *grammatical category* which
serves to express distinction in terms of orientation within
the immediate context of an utterance. Deictic categories
are those which make crucial reference to such factors as
the time or place of speaking or the identity or location of
the speaker; the addressee or other entities.
{unquote}

If Claudio has chosen just to have a category called
_deictic_ which cover a range of meanings, I personally do
not find this unreasonable.

> It's just strange that it was put into a separate class.

Why so?  Liva is not meant to be a naturalistic artlang.

> gua\spi seems to better reflect Plan B.

I do not understand this nor see its relevance.

> Maybe it was done for compactness like in Lojban but then
> it's a deviation from pure loglangliness.

Maybe it was done that way because it's the way Claudio
wanted it: "It can be seen as an experiment, trying to
satisfy both the requirements of logic and the aesthetic
preferences of its author -- two things not unrelated to
each other."

I note Claudio listed And Rosta as among the people whose
discussion helped in the formation of the language; maybe
And knows why Claudio did not, in fact, have a separate
"pronoun" category.

> Or maybe as John Clifford correctly notices predicate
> logic itself is a part of SAE culture

I am not even going to go there!  I do not want another
boringly protracted argument.

> so maybe pronouns shouldn't be got rid of?

I know; it's very naughty of Mark Line not to have included
pronouns in Classical Yiklamu and quite remiss of Claudio
Gnoli to 'hide them away" in deictics.  Whatever were they
thinking of?  Experimental conlangs?  Whatever next?

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".