Print

Print


AFMCL ...

Miapimoquitch doesn't have pronouns as such. There are three person
markers that I think of as "vectors", in that they point the predicate
toward or away from speech act participants. For intransitive predicates
they are wa= 'activity / state of first person' and ku= 'activity / state
of
second person'. Third person is unmarked.

Transitive predicates are marked with a transitivizing prefix n-. The
person markers are interpreted a bit differently on transitive predicates:
wa= is 'first person acting on third person (1>3)' and ku= is 'second
person acting on third person (2>3)'. Third person acting on another
third person (3>3') is unmarked, though a predicate with the transitive
prefix and no person prefixes can be seen as covertly marking third
person acting on a different third person. For the interaction of first and
second persons the marker is lï= 'second person acting on first person
(2>1)'. (The transitive marker is still present even though there is no
ambiguity that the predicate is transitive with the person marker lï=.)

That's direct transitivity. There is also inverse transitivity, marked with
l-
instead of n-. In the inverse, the person "vectors" point in the opposite
directions. So wa= is 'third person acting on first person' (1<3), ku= is
'third person acting on second person (2<3)', and lï= is 'first person
acting on second person' (2<1). (Note the arrows pointing in the other
direction in the abbreviations.)

Here are some examples of their use:

wa= n- kippï -ka (1>3= TRANS- poking -IMPF) 'I am poking him'
ku= n- kippï -ka (2>3= TRANS- poking -IMPF) 'you are poking him'
lï= n- kippï -ka (2>1= TRANS- poking -IMPF) 'you are poking me'
n- kippï -ka  (TRANS- poking -IMPF)'he is poking him'

wa= l- kippï -ka  (1<3= INV- poking -IMPF)'I am poking him'
ku= l- kippï -ka (2<3= INV- poking -IMPF) 'you are poking him'
lï= l- kippï -ka (2<1= TRANS- poking -IMPF) 'you are poking me'
l- kippï -ka (INV- poking -IMPF) 'he is being poked by him'


Number is handled in the predicate word itself, and is something like
pluractionality rather than number proper. Paucal, distributive, and
collective numbers are marked on the predicate word by various kinds
of reduplication; singular is unmarked. Paucal means "a few, a few
times, in a few places", distributive means "a lot (scattered in various
locations)" or "many times", and collective means "many events seen
as a single activity; a group; parts comprising a system / whole". A
clause in the paucal such as n-pipitï (TRANS-see:PAUC) can mean 'he
saw a few of them' or 'he saw it a few times' or 'a few of them saw it' or
'a few of them saw it a few times', etc.


As a pronoun system it's pretty lean, but I really like how it interacts
with
predicate categories of transitivity and pluractionality to get a wide
range
of meanings that can be ambiguous in somewhat unfamiliar ways.

Dirk

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Katerina <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> I have reworked the T'elχ personal pronouns to look like this:
>
> I person:
>
> *tem**χ *we (collective entity)
> *ymma *one of us [no additional distinctions]
> *ym**ɫ *one of us [speaker]
> *om**ɫ* one of us [non-speaker]
>
> II person:
>
> *tețχ *you (collective entity)
> *ywwa *one of you [no additional distinctions]
> *yw**ɫ *one of you [interlocutor]
> *ow**ɫ* one of you [non-interlocutor]
>
> III person:
>
> *ifsx *he/she/it
> *ifsa'n* they
> *vi**ŋχ *they (collective entity)
> *vu *one of them
>
> In addition, *ym**ɫ/**om**ɫ* and *yw**ɫ/**ow**ɫ *could be used with a
> distal - proximal meaning and denote either physical distance or lack of
> familiarity/relevance, but this would be much more rare.
>
> In some situations, *ywwa/yw**ɫ* could be regarded as a rough equivalent of
> the singular "you", but *ymma/ym**ɫ* does not even come close to the
> meaning of "I". Right now I'm wondering whether to have Azila create a
> proper first person singular pronoun upon her re-entry into the collective
> to signify the shift in her self-perception (the fact that she had retained
> partial individuality) and to facilitate communication with humans, who
> would be more comfortable if the T'elχ language had an equivalent for "I".
>
> 1st and 2nd person pronouns do not have the full four-way number
> distinction (singular, plural, collective, exceptional) present in T'elχ
> nouns, only a two-way distinction between collective pronouns (which refer
> to a body of several units, understood as a whole) and exceptionals (which
> single out a specific unit within the collective while emphasizing that it
> is still an integral element in a greater structure), which is a direct
> consequence of theT'elχ could not conceive of a sapient entity capable of
> communication as anything other than a superorganism such as themselves.
> The exceptionals have no equivalent in the other languages in our universe
> and Azila's attempts to translate the meaning into what once was her native
> language would result in her referring to herself in the third person as
> "this body/unit/element", which would sound a lot more coarse and
> disturbing than she had intended. Most of the time, though, she would
> simply refer to herself in the plural and it'd make all the more sense
> given that the question of who or what she actually is open - she may be
> less an echo of the woman who used to inhabit her physical shell, and more
> a splinter of the greater collective consciousness that was able to gain a
> certain degree of self-awareness but was bound to continue perceiving
> itself as incomplete/broken and to have what my co-author has called
> "phantom mind pains".
>
> I found the idea of exceptionals ("one of...") accidentally on another
> conlanging forum and thought it was perfect for the T'elχ.
>
> Peace,
>
> Cathy
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:54 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 29/11/2016 02:31, Herman Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Katerina 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Jarda doesn't distinguish between singular and plural,
> >> even in the pronouns.
> >>
> >
> > Piashi (written as _Bax_), the latest version of my
> > briefscript project before I abandoned it also did not
> > distinguish between singular and plural in nouns or
> > pronouns.  But ...
> >
> > It does have inclusive and exclusive "we", but those are
> >>  better analyzed as 1st+2nd and 1st+3rd pronouns, not 1st
> >>  person plural.
> >>
> >
> > It did not do this, but did follow Jespersen's observation
> > in "An International Language" (1928), that:
> > {quote}
> > ... "we" does not mean several "I's", but "I + someone else
> > or several others" ... '
> > {unquote}
> >
> > It's personal pronouns were:
> > WRITTEN SPOKEN MEANING
> >    v     /mi/    I, me
> >    c     /ci/    we, us
> >    q     /ku/    you (thou, thee, ye, you)
> >    t     /ta/    he, him, she, her, it, they, them [generic]
> >    s     /sa/    he, him, she, her, it, they, them [near]
> >    l     /la/    he, him, she, her, it, they, them [far]
> >
> > That is 'near' or 'far' in time, place or reference; _s_
> > could also mean 'the latter' and _l_ 'the former'
> >
> > The personal pronouns of Outidic and TAKE are the usual 1st,
> > 2nd & 3rd persons, singular and plural, pattern of many
> > languages.
> >
> > Ray
> >
>