Pronouns Re: Recalled to life

 --- Christophe Grandsire
>
> True. And it's true that there are plenty of
> languages which just don't mark
> plural on nouns. But even in those languages, and
> even when in those languages
> pronouns pattern like nouns, number is always marked
> in some way on pronouns.
> English is quite unique in having a 2nd person which
> doesn't distinguish
> singular from plural, and the fact that most
> dialects of English have invented
> a way to make this distinction, and use it nearly
> always mandatorily, shows
> that it must be something people really find
> necessary.
>
> Now, if your language really doesn't distinguish
> singular from plural in
> pronouns, or only optionally, that's no problem. But
> don't try to say that most
> European languages do so when English is alone in
> that matter (and then only
> some dialects of English).
>
i think i've already commented on the bac way of
dealing with this ( three basic personal pronouns,
which don't of themselves define number : sot, wer,
lic numerically; each can form collective plurals :
sont, wenr, linc; and discrete (term?) plurals : soht,
wehr, lihc. singular and numbered forms : sotuy,
sotek, sotaj numerically. you can be specific the
about number the first time but after that you tend to
use the non-specific form )

anyway . . .

i was thinking about two other features of bac and how
they interact. they are : the semantics of nouns and
the use of definite forms.

briefly, and i'm sure there are technical ways of
expressing this i don't know, not to mention more
sophisticated and watertight analyses, nouns can have
three different types of semantic value : meaning,
reference and connotation. most nouns in bac, like
most true nouns in many natural languages, have
meaning. many of these will have connotation as well (
by this i mean various emotional/social/... baggage &c
). a few nouns _don't_ have meaning. these correspond
generally to what in english are pronouns. some of
these have reference ( person, or to something
specified in the previous sentence, &c ) and some are
referentially empty ( these usually have connotation,
altho one noun |tat| has neither meaning, nore
reference, nor connotation )

secondly, bac tends to mark nouns as indefinite when
they are first encountered ( unless it's a (near-)
universally understood  concept ) and definite
thereafter. this principle extends to proper nouns and
pronouns, which both fall within the noun class

if i put these together, i get the distinct impression
that it would make sense if once a pronoun was
introduced ( in the indefinite ) all subsequent
definite uses of this pronoun would refer to the same
person/s as the original use _even if the speaker
changes_. that is, if i say to you |weri Gaj tatos|,
can you see that, you could reply |wner [def] Gil
Ghaj|, of course 'you' [ie i] can. alternatively you
could say |sot [indef] Gil Ghaj| with the same meaning

so, the point of this posting ( which probably makes
no sense . . . i'm hungry ) : is this competely insane
or might it work ? any examples of similar systematic
usage ( i know of uses like the english 'so, what do
we want for supper' &c ) ?

bn

=====
bnathyuw | landan | arR
stamp the sunshine out | angelfish
your tears came like anaesthesia | phèdre

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply