Print

Print


On 04/09/2017 17:48, Raymond Brown wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 17:01, Aidan Aannestad wrote:
[snip]
> 
>> and the vast majority of Romance noun forms come from Latin 
>> accusatives rather than nominatives.
> 
> True, tho this was a development in Vulgar Latin and is rather more 
> complicated than this and has much to do with phonetic attriction as
>  anything else.  This is clearly not the case with English "I" and 
> "me".

I wrote in haste last evening, so cut short one or two things.  Old
French and Old Proven├žal surely show that the nominative was still much
alive in the Vulga Latin period.  The ablative & accusative singulars
fell together phonetically and the dative & genitive cases came to be
replaced by prepositional phrases; this gave rise in western Romance to
the nominative ~ oblique case system.  It is IMHO quite different from
the I~me phenomenon in English.

> I was going to comment on the French examples as the Romancelangs
> use of disjunctive and conjunctive personal pronouns is really
> something quite different from English, but I'm pressed for time.

However, I hold this position even more strongly this morning.  But first:

On 04/09/2017 19:35, And Rosta wrote:> On 4 September 2017 at 14:47,
Logan Kearsley wrote:
> [snip]
>> 
>> Are there any documented conlangs that have similar case-assignment
>> weirdness? Or, for that matter, any natlangs where this sort of
>> thing is formally recognized as correct grammar?
>> 
> 
> You make it seem weirder by trying to characterize this as case
> (i.e. a category that pairs allomorphy with a fairly consistent 
> semanticosyntactic property):

AMEN!

I don't always agree with And, but on this I most certainly do - 100%.
The problem is thinking of _I_ and _me_ in terms of the traditional
cases of Latin or, indeed, Old English, German, etc.  It is clear that
case system simply does not exist in modern English.

Subject and object, e.g., are determined by position.  If someone says
"Us saw they yesterday" we do _not_ understand this as inversion and
meaning "They saw us yesterday.  We understand as a quaint dialect
variant of standard English "We saw them yesterday."   The 'case' of
"us" and "they" is irrelevant - it's the position that matters!

I have heard in regional spoken English sentences such as;
"'er bain't calling we; us don't belong to she."
"Shall us put us books into us desks?"

It's _position_, not case that matters.

> a better characterization of the English facts is that a handful of 
> personal pronouns have an allomorph conditioned inflectionally by 
> various heterogeneous syntactic conditions -- with these conditions 
> being, in contemporary English, subject to quite extreme interlectal 
> variation,

Yep - as examples above show.   :)

> often -- to an increasing extent -- in ways that are sensitive to 
> what I call 'falutation' (a.k.a. 'register'). While the
> heterogeneity of those syntactic conditions is weird (tho plainly
> explicable historically as the detritus of diachronic change under
> the perverse influence of prescriptivism), the weirdness is
> misleadingly exaggerated by lumping those conditions together and
> calling the lump a 'case'.

Amen!  Amen!

> If there are conlangs with phenomena of comparable grammatical and 
> sociolinguistic complexity, there's no end to the plaudits due to the
> conlangs' creators' attention to detail!

Yes, indeed.  :)

To return to Logan's second question "Or, for that matter, any natlangs
where this sort of thing is formally recognized as correct grammar?",
IMO the answer is "Probably not."  It would mean the language had
inherited a case system and evolved the same or similar heterogenous
syntactic conditions as modern English.

To return to the Romance languages.  What we find is their own
distinctive development of conjunctive and disjunctive pronouns (in
which Britainese will share).  The conjunctive pronouns are those
conjoined to the verb and they behave in the traditional manner of case
system (cf. French _je ~ me_, _il ~ le ~ lui_ etc.).  Disjunctive
pronouns are those not directly associated with the verb (e.g. French
_moi_) and, like modern Romance nouns, do not exhibit case variation.

In short, IMO the development of personal pronoun system in modern
Romance languages is not prarallel to that of modern English.

Ray