Re: Person distinctions in languages?

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:33:41 +0100, Steven Williams <feurieaux@...> wrote:

> --- Carsten Becker <naranoieati@...>
>schrieb:
...
>> I've had a 2nd person inanimate when Ayeri was still
>> "young". But I dropped that device because I
>> couldn't think of a possible sensible use.
>
>Ha, I've done that too, with earlier conlangs. Then
>again, I tend to talk to inanimate objects, in a
>completely non-schizophrenic way:
>
>"Stupid computer, why must you fight me like that?"
>
>"Oh, please, Microsoft Word, don't freeze up on me
>now!"
>
>Languages should have a 2nd person inanimate, just for
>that purpose :).
I second that!

Additionally, any animistic religion would have a use of them. There could
be a people that imagine to be living in a constant dialogue with everything
that surrounds them.


<OT>
>Hi, or rather, [kry@s] or [g_0ry@s] or [!\y@s_<] or
>however J. 'Mach' Wust decided it was really
>pronounced.
:)

I've made up my mind that the most appropiate analysis is [kry@_^s:].
However, that's a local dialect very different from standard German, which
would rather use ['gRy:s@] or, less northern, ['g_0Ry:s@] (which I believe
is completely equivalent to ['kRy:s@]). Note that the [@] in the ending is
totally unrelated to the [@] in the diphthong and that the dialectal
consonant length is distinctive (e.g. /pIs/ 'be!' or 'until' vs. /pIs:/
'bite'). It's not really a greeting, though it may be used at the end of a
letter/message, just before the name, in a similar fashion as "regards" (if
I'm not wrong). Literally, it's 'greetings'.
</OT>

kry@s:
j. 'mach' wust

Reply