Print

Print


Hi,

Kóissa has 1st and 2nd person pronouns in the singular, dual, and plural,
with clusivity in the 1st person and a full-blown politeness distinction
(that is, separate polite forms for singular, dual and plural) in the 2nd
person. Third person pronouns are supplied by a three-term demonstrative
series, with separate pronouns for male, female, and several animate,
inanimate and abstract classes, though I may repurpose an old 3rd person
pronoun series for polite animate reference, and collapse the politeness
distinction in the 2du (this probably violates a universal).

Jeff.

On 28 November 2016 at 13:58, Katerina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> While writing a response to the "Languages for collective species" topic
> I'd started the other day, I began to wonder what the personal pronoun
> systems in your conlangs were like.
>
> My first conlang, *ɫoińXt**e'n*, was based largely on the moribund Itelmen
> language of Eastern Siberia with some elements borrowed from Chukchi, a
> language belonging to the same Chukchi-Kamchatkan group, and was intended
> for a sci-fi project I've been working on with a friend. It was to be
> spoken by a species of humanoid aliens who used to have a unified hive mind
> in the distant past but had since broken down into small groups of 3-9
> bodies with different degrees of integration, from full (the members act as
> a single entity and have no individual sense of "self") to partial (the
> members may act separately and have individual identities, but constantly
> share their thoughts and emotions).
>
> The pronoun system, and the personal pronouns in particular, were the most
> influenced by the race's social structure and mode of thinking
> (understandably so). This year, our concept of the species underwent some
> drastic changes in the direction of greater unification and radical
> alienness and I would like to modify the language accordingly, but, once
> again, I'd love to read about the pronoun systems in your languages first
> and to hear any ideas you might have on this.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cathy
>
> -----
> *(in brackets: the base used for inflection and derivation)*
>
> [3rd person singular, umarked for gender] he-she: *ɛńńa* (ɛńń-)
>
> [1st person plural, singular] I: t*X**o* (owe-)
> [1st person plural, inclusive i]: we: *tXoiń**ί'n *(otXe-)
> [1st person plural, inclusive ii] we:* tX**ί'n* (tXe-)
> [1st person plural, exclusive] we: *etXe'n* (etXe-)
> [1st person plural, pluralis majestatis/royal or representative "we"] we:
> *itX* (itXe-)
>
> [2nd person singular, neutral] you: *tewwa* (tewwe-)
> [2nd person singular, respectful and intimate] thou: *tessa *(tesse-)
> [2nd person plural, neutral] you: *tw**ί'n* (twɛ-)
> [2nd person singular, respectful and intimate] thou: *tesá'n* (tse-)
>
> [3rd person plural, umarked for gender] they: *eńńá'n* (eńńá-)
>
> [3rd person collective] they, it: *e**ńX *(eńXe-)
>
> The first person singular pronoun *tXo *"I" was more of a formal element -
> it was rarely used and poorly understood, to a point where adults had to
> insist that juveniles had to learn to use "I" when speaking about their
> personal opinions or preferences, as opposed to group consensus or actions
> performed in the physical world. For the latter, the generic inclusive form
> of "we" *tX**ί'n* was most commonly used when talking about oneself, though
> third person zero (impersonal constructions) or third person proper were
> also possible.
>
> First person plural pronouns have a clusivity distinction. The exclusive
> "we" *etXe'n *refers to the speaker and a third party, but not the
> interlocutor, the inclusive "we" I *tXoiń**ί'n* refers to the speaker and
> the interlocutor only, with no third parties involved. Finally, the
> inclusive "we" II *t**X**ί'n* is used to refer to the speaker, the
> interlocutor and a third party (or parties), and it also was the generic
> pronoun often used to refer to oneself instead of "I".
>
> The royal or representative "we" *ίtX *was formally supposed to refer only
> to the speaker, but could include any other persons he/she was talking
> about, so the precise meaning had to be disambiguated by the context.
>
> The collective pronoun *enX* would seem to have no equivalent in human
> languages (correct me if I'm wrong) and could be translated either as
> "they" or "it". It was used exclusively to refer to a hive-type group,
> which acted and perceived itself as a single superorganism despite
> consisting of several persons, or, occasionally, to a regular group that
> had temporarily entered a state of full integration.
>
> The language has something akin to a T/V distinction equivalent to that in
> Indo-European languages, but the degree of social distance inherent in the
> forms is completely different. The regular, neutral form of "you" more or
> less corresponds to the T-form ("thou"-you) and is informal, with
> connotations ranging from rude to casual or friendly. The marked form of
> "you" is intensely respectful and polite, but, unlike the V-form, it
> signals a special degree of intimacy, i.e. an even smaller distance or a
> complete lack thereof. There are no forms of "you" that would be be formal,
> polite/respectful, and indicative of greater social distance at the same
> time.
>
> The respectful "you" *tessa* was used between those who had developed an
> exceptionally strong mutual connection that transcended the link shared by
> a specific group (long-standing couples, warriors who had formed a close
> bond through their experiences in the battlefield, regional leaders and
> their warbands etc.). The plural form, *tesá'n*, was rare, used mostly by
> warband members when addressing their leader as a counterpart to the royal
> "we".
>
> Depending on the social/situational context, the demonstrative pronoun*
> iņɫ*
> "this (one)" could be used to mean "I", or, less frequently, "him-her"
> (someone who is physically but not emotionally close to the speaker and
> does not belong to their group), while *oņɫ* "that (one)" could mean
> "him-her" (someone who is both physically and emotionally remote from the
> speaker). Likewise, *iņɫe'n* and *oņɫe'n*, accordingly, may mean "they".
>
> A first person plural pronoun followed by a noun or pronoun (typically, a
> proper name, the name of a profession or social position, a third person
> singular pronoun, the demonstrative pronouns *iņɫ *"this, this one" or *oņɫ
> *"that, that one" or the corresponding interrogative pronoun) could be used
> to mean "I and [...]" or "I, you and [...]":
>
> *etXe'n LańXu* "I and Lanxu" (first/personal name)
> *etXe'n eńńa* "I and him-her"
> *etXe'n iņɫ* "I and this one/him-her"
> *etXe'n oņɫ* "I and that one/him-her"
> *etXe'n ṭlsońsṭɛloń *"I and the bodyguard"
> *etXe'n ńί'n? **etXe'n ńί'ņwe'n?* "I and who (else)?" (sg. and pl.)
>
> *tX**ί'n LańXu *"I, you and Lanxu"
> *tXί'n eńńa* "I, you and him-her"
> *tXί'n iņɫ *"I, you and this one/him-her" (or: "you, someone else and i")
> *tXί'n oņɫ *"I, you and that one/him-her"
> *tXί'n ṭlsonsteloń *"I, you and the bodyguard"
> *tXί'n ńί'ń? **tXί'n ńί'ņwe'n?* "I, you and who (else)?" (sg. and pl.)
>
> *itX LańXu* "I [royalty or ambassador] and Lanxu" or "I [royaltyor
> ambassador], you and Lanxu"
> *itX eńńa* "I [royalty or ambassador] and him-her" or "I [royalty or
> ambassador], you and him/her"
> *itX iņɫ *"I [royalty or ambassador] and this one/him-her" or "I [royalty
> or ambassador], you and this one/him-her"
> *itX oņɫ *"I [royalty or ambassador] and that one/him-her" or "I [royalty
> or ambassador], you and that one/him-her"
> *itX tlsonsteloń* "I [royalty or ambassador] and the bodyguard" or "I
> [royalty or ambassador], you and the bodyguard"
> *itX** ńί'ń? **itX **ńί'ņwe'n? *"I [royalty or ambassador] and who (else)?"
> or "I [royalty or ambassador], you and who (else)?" (sg. and pl.)
>
> In most cases, the inclusive we (ii)* tXoińί'n *could not be used this way
> by definition, as it denoted only the speaker and the interlocutor.
> However, *tXoińί'n iņɫ* would be possible if one were referring to oneself
> (i.e., "you and I", "us, including myself/this one").
>
> This pattern was most frequently observed with first person plural
> pronouns. However, sometimes the second person plural pronouns *twί'n* or
> *tesá'n* and the third person plural pronoun *eńńá'n* could be used in an
> identical manner, although this would be more rare. The collective pronoun*
> eńX* could be used only if the other person was part of the hive-group,
> regardless of the time of their assimilation (as long as they were accepted
> into the group before the moment of speaking). In that event, the whole
> phrase meant "group X, including member Y", and was used to emphasize that
> said member was present when the group was performing a particular action.
> The structure could not be employed to indicate persons who were engaged in
> the same actions as the hive-group and/or were assisting it with a task,
> but were not part of the hive-group themselves.
>
> Pronouns have no comitative forms. For phrases such as "action X was
> performed together with [pronoun]", one must use the* -ṭX* infinitive
> combined with the verb *ine'ńq**ņes* "to act together, to perform a joint
> action" or *ine'ńhńίs *"to be, stay, remain together". Both behave as II
> conjugation transitive verbs, though they do not have a direct object. This
> could be taken as an allusion to the fact that the very presence of another
> person implies an influence, a mutual interaction of sorts, and that mental
> bonds were seen not as an immutable state but as an ongoing, dynamic
> process.
>
> so, for instance, "we/i guard the house together with him-her" would sound
> as
>
> *(tXί'n) eńńa nine'ńhńίṣen **txestonsteṭX *(lit. we/I are together with
> him-her in house-guarding)
> *(tXί'n) eńńa nine'**ńq**ņe**ṣen txestonsteṭX *(lit. we/I perform the joint
> action of house-guarding together with him-her)
>
> Nore often than not, the first pronoun (which denotes the main agent) would
> be omitted due to the general tendency to drop pronouns and the fact that
> all the finite verb already contained all the relevant information. On
> occasion the second pronoun could be dropped as well.
>
> The opposite situation would be described using the *seńṭq ...-(j)ǀ* form
> (which somewhat resembles the prohibitive form):
>
> *(tXί'n) seńṭq ɛńńa **ine'ńhńjǀ uɫXeņńɨX *(we/I arrive(d) without him-her -
> lit. we arrive without being with him-her)
> *(tXί'n) **seńṭq **eńńa ine'ńq**ņjǀ uɫXeņńɨX* (we/I arrive(d) without
> him-her - lit. we arrive without performing a joint action with him-her)
>
> Again, the first pronoun would usually be omitted, though the second one
> would be obligatory.
>
> (tbc)
>