Print

Print


2015-10-24 15:58 GMT+03:00 R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:

> 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.
>

This thread is "How many parts of speech does a loglang need?"


> 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}
>

What I meant is why "pronouns" and decitics are not together with
predicates.
"I" is "the speaker of this utterance". It can be unwrapped into its
underlying predicate.
As well as other deictics.

So my question was if Liva is a loglang why deictics (together with
pronouns) are in a separate category?



>
> 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.


And my question is exactly why it looks so naturalistic :)



>
>
> 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".
>