Print

Print


2015-10-24 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 2015-10-24 10:54 GMT+03:00 R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> >> I do not see "pronoun" in the above and, indeed, I've done a
>
> > The most common pronoun in world languages is "I" so here is the relevant
> > part:
> > me = the first person, "I, me, we"; me ñca = "we"; me+[:believe>>] = "in
> my
> > opinion"
> >
> > It's just strange that it was put into a separate class.
>
> It appears that Liva lumps "pronouns" in together with the general
> class of deictics, along with what we would call interjections, modal
> markers, and demonstratives, and other things.  Pronouns per se are
> not a separate class.
>
> Deictics apparently are the only class of word that can form a syntagm
> by itself.  But it's not clear if that applies to all deictics or only
> to a subset of them.  (The only "pronoun" I see used as a stand-alone
> sentence is a vocative "hey you!".)  If it applies only to a subset,
> then there seem to be multiple syntactic classes within deictic.
>
> > gua\spi seems to
> > better reflect Plan B.
>
> Why does that matter?  Plan B is well known, but it's not such an
> unusually good conlang that we should judge other conlangs by how well
> they reflect it.  Was Liva supposed to be a redesign of Plan B, like
> Jörg's Quetch?   I can't find anything to that effect in the Liva
> grammar.
>

Of course, not. Liva was mentioned as a loglang so if it is so then why
such a strange split of words into PoS?
If it's not supposed to be a loglang then np.


> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
>