Vreleks Forum Index Vreleks
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

On personal pronouns

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleks Forum Index -> Conlangs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: On personal pronouns Reply with quote

Hello, everyone!

I have a multiple-part question about personal pronouns and, as always when having a language question, I turn to my 先輩s and sometimes 後輩s here in Vreleks, trying to find an answer.

Firstly
Could you imagine a fully functional language not having any definitive personal pronouns. I think this doesn't happen in any natlangs, but we know there are a lot of pro-drop/null subject languages where personal pronouns tend to vary from redundant to quite unnecessary, I see this as an option that is not that illogical, especially if the function of pronouns is encoded grammatically via verb forms or other means.

Toutefois, I am not implying that there would be no way to indicate the function that personal pronouns take, par example, with noun phrases like "this person" or "that person" or whatever. Like, per esempio, in Japanese it might be rude to use such words like あなた or 君 (meaning "you"), and personal names or titles are used instead, so I can definitely see how that could and would work.

Do you, by chance, know of any conlangs that do this? What pros/cons do you see in this kind of a language?

Secondly and quite unrelatedly
Typically we speak of a three way pronoun system (namely, the first, the second and the third person). Do you know of variatns where there are more? Less?
Moi, I can imagine having only two pronouns, "me" and "not-me", though I don't know how functional or disfunctional would that be, considering there are languages with different kinds of encoding (I've forgotten the proper term) in verbs.

I would like to hear(read) your oppinion propos de both these questions, either separately or entwined with each other. I hope my post was nat too chaotic and/or hard to understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: On personal pronouns Reply with quote

I fear my hardware/software combination was unable to correctly display the following characters:
先輩 後輩� あなた 君 �


Kiri wrote:
Could you imagine a fully functional language not having any definitive personal pronouns. I think this doesn't happen in any natlangs, but we know there are a lot of pro-drop/null subject languages where personal pronouns tend to vary from redundant to quite unnecessary, I see this as an option that is not that illogical, especially if the function of pronouns is encoded grammatically via verb forms or other means.

Toutefois, I am not implying that there would be no way to indicate the function that personal pronouns take, par example, with noun phrases like "this person" or "that person" or whatever. Like, per esempio, in Japanese it might be rude to use such words like あなた or 君 (meaning "you"), and personal names or titles are used instead, so I can definitely see how that could and would work.

I believe that there are natlangs which have no personal pronouns occuring as independent words.
But AFAIK all do mark person somehow.
Independent "personal" pronouns that do exist sometimes mark other categories than person and number, perhaps as well as, or perhaps instead of, one of those.

I did this search (search "rara" for keywords "personal pronoun").

Among interesting hits I got were:
Quote:
Number 71
Phenomenon no number inflection at all on any personal pronouns
Where found Mura Pirahã (isolate, Macro-Chibchan); Kawi (Old Javanese, Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian)
Domain morphology: inflection
Subdomain categories and their domains: person, number
Keywords personal pronoun
Type rarum
Universals violated none?
Source Wiesemann, Ursula (1986). Preface. In Wiesemann (ed.) 1986, vii-ix.
Wiesemann, Ursula (ed.) (1986). Pronominal Systems. Tübingen: Narr.
Mura Pirahã: information from Daniel Everett.
For Kawi Humboldt?
Comments


Quote:
Number 67
Phenomenon a three-way distinction among personal pronouns between 'singular speaker', 'singular non-speaker' (i.e. addressee or other), 'plural' (any speech-act role or combination of roles).
Where found Balante (West Atlantic, Niger-Congo)
Domain morphology: inflection
Subdomain categories and their domains: person, number
Keywords personal pronoun
Type nonesuch
Universals violated none
Source Wiesemann, Ursula (1986). Preface. In Wiesemann (ed.) 1986, vii-ix.
Wiesemann, Ursula (ed.) (1986). Pronominal Systems. Tübingen: Narr.
Comments



I also did this search (search universals "archive" for keywords "personal pronoun") and found the following interesting hit:

Quote:
Number 1204
Original In all languages, there are never more person distinctions within possessive pronouns and possessive affixes than within personal pronouns.
Standardized IF there are person distinctions within possessive pronouns and possessive affixes, THEN there are at least as many person distinctions within personal pronouns.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, possessive, affix, person
Domain inflection
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 98, U 50
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Comments


Quote:
Number 1320
Original Among the deictic elements of every human language is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee.
Standardized Among the deictic elements of every human language is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee.
Formula
Keywords deictic elements, personal pronoun, speaker, addressee
Domain lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis unspecified
Source Hockett 1963: 21
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
In other words, first and second person singular pronouns are universal. A more interesting question is whether these forms are in fact necessarily dedicated to these functions, or also have other functions, deictic (here/there) or as social-role designations (servant/master).


Quote:
Number 1439
Original Every one of the seven metapersons, i.e. 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is expressed in the pronominal system of every language.
Standardized Every one of the seven metapersons, i.e. 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is expressed in the pronominal system of every language.
Formula
Keywords pronoun, personal pronoun, person
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 1
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. If a language lacks a special form to denote one of the seven metapersons, this metaperson will be expressed together with another metaperson in one pronominal form.

2. Cf. similar but less precise claims by Hockett (): Among the deictic elements of every human language there is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee; and by Greenberg (): All languages have pronominal categories involving at least three persons and two numbers.


Quote:
Result No. 41
Number 1440
Original In no language are there pronominal forms differentiating the number of elements within a metaperson, e.g. special forms for 'hearer + hearer + ... + non-participant' and 'hearer + non-participant + ... + non-participant'.
Standardized In no language are there pronominal forms differentiating the number of elements within a metaperson, e.g. special forms for 'hearer + hearer + ... + non-participant' and 'hearer + non-participant + ... + non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords pronoun, personal pronoun, person, number
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 2
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 42
Number 1441
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Standardized In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Formula
Keywords pronoun, personal pronoun, person, 1st
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 3
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
In all these languages, personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to a single speaker as well as to a group including the speaker. E.g. Aymaran naya (na) means 'I, we but not you'. (For details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966).
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:16
Kawi [=Old Javanese], Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea) (Sokolovskaja 1980); Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 43
Number 1442
Original In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker', it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer';
(b) 'non-participant' ,
(c) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker', THEN it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer';
(b) 'non-participant' ,
(c) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 4
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Does this mean that 1st person is never syncretic with 2nd or 3rd?

Result No. 44
Number 1443
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker', it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)',
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker', THEN it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker+hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)',
(b) 'speaker+hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 5
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:19
Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea) (Sokolovskaja 1980); Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean).
In all these languages, personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to a single speaker as well as to a group including the speaker. E.g. Aymaran NAYA (NA) means 'I, we but not you'. (For details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966);
Marind (Trans-New Guinea), where number is differentiated in all persons but 1st (for details see Drabbe 1955 [Boelaars 1950: 2]).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. The form denoting metaperson 'speaker' can include among its meanings the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' if and only if this form also denotes metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' (cf. U 22).

3. Cf.

Result No. 45
Number 1444
Original In all languages, if the metaperson 'speaker' is not the only meaning denoted by a certain pronominal form, then among its meanings are the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' (and, consequently, 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'; cf. ), and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF the metaperson 'speaker' is not the only meaning denoted by a pronominal form, THEN among its meanings are the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' (and, consequently, 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'), and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, number, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 6
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 46
Number 1445
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular.
Standardized In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 7
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:20
Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic), Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea), Thai (Daic, Austroasiatic), Sioux (Siouan), Siyin (Burmic, Sino-Tibetan), Haitian, Martinique (both Creole, French-based), Sranan (Creole, English-based), some Spanish dialects spoken in America, Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) (Sokolovskaja 1980);
Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean), where personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', 'hearer' in non-singular, as well as to 'hearer' in singular. E.g. Aymara YUMA means 'thou, you' (for details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 47
Number 1446
Original In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular, it cannot denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Standardized IF some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular, THEN it cannot denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, 2nd, speaker, hearer, number, singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 8
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 48
Number 1447
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some pronominal form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular, it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)',
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)',
(c) 'non-participant'
Standardized IF a pronominal form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular, it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)',
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)',
(c) 'non-participant'
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, singular, speaker, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 9
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
To (a) and (b): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European);
To (c): Marathi (Indic, Indo-European), Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) (Sokolovskaja 1980).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 49
Number 1448
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular is not the only meaning expressed by some pronominal form, then this form includes among its meanings the metapersons:
(a) 'hearer' in the non-singular;
(b) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'
Standardized IF the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular is not the only meaning expressed by a pronominal form, THEN this form includes among its meanings the metapersons:
a) 'hearer' in the non-singular;
b) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, singular, non-singular, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 10
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) (Sokolovskaja 1980)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 50
Number 1449
Original In no language is there a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Standardized In no language is there a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, non-singular, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical (according to author absolute)
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 11
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Languages having inclusive/exclusive opposition in the 2nd person, e.g. Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Kordofanian) (Wiesemann 1986: viii). ??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian) (Elena Filimonova, Frans Plank). Bavarian German (Simon 2000).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal follows from .

3. Cf. a similar statement by Greenberg, .

Result No. 51
Number 1450
Original In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, then this form includes among its meanings the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, THEN this form includes among its meanings the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, non-singular, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical (according to author absolute)
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 12
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Languages having inclusive/exclusive opposition in the 2nd person, e.g. Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Kordofanian) (Wiesemann 1986: viii), ??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian) (Elena Filimonova, Frans Plank). Bavarian German (Simon 2000). Cf.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 52
Number 1451
Original In all languages, if there is a certain form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, it cannot denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, THEN it cannot denote the metaperson 'speaker'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, 1st, hearer, number, non-singular, speaker
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 13
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 53
Number 1452
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer' in singular;
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker+non-participant(s)',
(c) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' (cf. );
(d) 'non-participant'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular, THEN it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer' in singular;
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)',
(c) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' ;
(d) 'non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, non-singular, speaker
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 14
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
To (b) and (c): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European);

To (d): Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980).
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:24
To (a): Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic), Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea), Thai (Daic, Austroasiatic), Sioux (Siouan), Siyin (Burmic, Sino-Tibetan), Haitian, Martinique (both Creole, French-based), Sranan (Creole, English-based), some Spanish dialects spoken in America with the so-called voseo, Russian (Slavic, Indo-European), French (Romance, Indo-European), Hindi, Marathi (both Indic, Indo-European) and other languages, where the form 2Pl is used as a polite form addressing the hearer in the singular. (Sokolovskaja 1980);
Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean), where personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to 'hearer' in singular and non-singular. E.g. Aymara form YUMA means 'thou, you' (for details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 54
Number 1453
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular (and consequently, the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant'(s); see ) are not the only meanings of a certain pronominal form, then the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular is also among its meanings.
Standardized IF the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular (and consequently, the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)') are not the only meanings of a pronominal form, THEN the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular is also among its meanings.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, singular, non-singular, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 15
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Haitian (Creole, French-based), Navajo (Athabaskan) (Sokolovskaja 1980)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 55
Number 1454
Original In all languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Standardized In all languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 16
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 56
Number 1455
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular, it cannot be used to denote the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular, THEN it cannot be used to denote the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 17
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:25
Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic), Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea), Thai (Daic, Austroasiatic), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European), Flamingo Bay dialect of Asmat (Trans-New Guinea) (Sokolovskaja 1980);
Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean), where personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to a 'non-participant' in singular and non-singular. E.g. Aymara YUPA means 'she, he, they' (for details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 57
Number 1456
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular is not the only meaning denoted by some pronominal form, then the only other metaperson expressed will be 'non-participant' in the non-singular.
Standardized IF the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular is not the only meaning denoted by a pronominal form, THEN the only other metaperson expressed will be 'non-participant' in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 18
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 58
Number 1457
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular, then it cannot be used to denote the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular, THEN it cannot be used to denote the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 19
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja, however, does not mention German as a potential violation, cf. the form 'sie' which refers to 'non-participant' in plural and female 'non-participant' in singular. [accidental homonymy, hence disregarded? ]
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:26
Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic), Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea), Thai (Daic, Austroasiatic), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European), Flamingo Bay dialect of Asmat (Trans-New Guinea) (Sokolovskaja 1980);
Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean), where personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to a 'non-participant' in singular and non-singular. E.g. Aymara YUPA means 'she, he, they' (for details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966);
all the languages making no number distinction in reference to non-participant would violate the statement, e.g. Kuman (Chimbu, Trans-New Guinea), Jéi (Yei, Trans-New Guinea).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 59
Number 1458
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular is not the only meaning denoted by some form, then the only other metaperson expressed will be 'non-participant' in the singular.
Standardized IF the metaperson 'non-participant' in the non-singular is not the only meaning denoted by a form, THEN among its meanings can only be metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 20
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 60
Number 1459
Original In no language is there a special form to denote a metaperson 'speaker+hearer(s)'.
Standardized In no language is there a special form to denote a metaperson 'speaker+hearer(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, inclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 21
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:28
And what about languages that have a 1INCL DU pronoun?
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal is derived from

Result No. 61
Number 1460
Original In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)', it must also denote the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)', THEN it must also denote the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Boas 1911: 39-40, Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 22
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:29
1. Gooniyandi (Bunaban, Australian), where there is a distinction between: (i) 'speaker + hearer' or 'speaker + non-participant + (non-participant) ..., and (ii) 'speaker + hearer + non-participant' ..., instead of the distinctions more common in Australian languages like dual vs. plural or inclusive vs. exclusive (mentioned in Testelec 1995: 582, for details see McGregor 1990).

2. The same system is documented in: Yaouré (Mande, Niger-Congo) (Hopkins 1986: 192, Kunimaipa (Trans-New Guinea) (Pence 1968, Geary 1977: 17-1Cool (p.c. M. Cysouw).

3. Palaung (Mon-Khmer)(as described in Milne 1921: 17): it contains two pronouns glossed as 'we', ye and e. The first of these is to be used when the persons addressed are all present and the second when at least one of them is absent. The first is then 'speaker+addressee(s)' and the second, if we interpret absent as equivalent to 3rd person, can be represented as 'speaker + addressee(s) + non-participant(s)'. (Greenberg 1989b: 455).

4. Languages having separate 1DU.INCL and 1PL.INCL forms?
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer(s)', 'non-participant(s)', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.

2. This universal was first suggested by Franz Boas 1911: 39-40: "A true first person plural is impossible, because there can never be more than one self. This logical laxity is avoided by many languages, in which a sharp distinction is made between the two combinations self and person or persons spoken to, or self and person or persons spoken of. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY LANGUAGE EXPRESSING IN A SEPARATE FORM THE COMBINATION OF THE THREE PERSONS, probably because this idea readily coalesces with the idea of self and persons spoken to. These two forms are generally designated by the rather inaccurate term of 'inclusive' and 'exclusive first person plural', by which is meant the first person plural, including or excluding the person addressed".

3. The reverse is not true (cf. , ).

4. This universal claims that an inclusive form is always a super-inclusive one, cf.

Result No. 62
Number 1461
Original If some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)', then
(a) in some languages this form can also denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(b) in some other languages it can not denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)', THEN
(a) in some languages this form can also denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(b) in some other languages it can not denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, 2nd, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 23
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Group (a) are languages that have no inclusive vs. exclusive distinction and have a so-called neutral form (which can denote the metapersons 'speaker + non-participant(s)' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'). Group (b) are either the languages which have an inclusive vs. exclusive distinction, or ones which have a neutral and an inclusive form.

Result No. 63
Number 1462
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)', it cannot denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 24
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980), where the inclusive pronoun a:pan, i.e. the form denoting the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)', is used in polite address to 'hearer' and 'non-participant'.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 64
Number 1463
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)', it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker';
(b) 'hearer' in singular;
(c) 'hearer' in non-singular;
(d) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker';
(b) 'hearer' in singular;
(c) 'hearer' in non-singular;
(d) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 25
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
To (a): Kawi [=Old Javanese], Javanese (Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea);
To (b): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European);
To (c) and (d): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 65
Number 1464
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' are not the only meanings denoted by some form, then the others metapersons expressed will be 'speaker' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' are not the only meanings denoted by a form, THEN the others metapersons expressed will be 'speaker' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 26
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980), where inclusive pronoun a:pan, i.e. the form denoting metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is used in polite address to 'hearer' and 'non-participant'.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 66
Number 1465
Original If some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)', then
(a) in some languages it cannot include among its meanings any other metaperson;
(b) in some other languages it can also denote metapersons ' speaker + hearer(s)' and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and for this casse universals , are valid.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)', THEN
(a) in some languages it cannot include among its meanings any other metaperson;
(b) in some other languages it can also denote metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and for this case universals , are valid.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 93, U 28
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 67
Number 1466
Original In all languages, if the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning of some form, then this form must also denote the metapersons 'speaker' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s)' (and consequently, 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)').
Standardized IF the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning of a form, THEN this form must also denote the metapersons 'speaker' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s)' (and consequently, 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)').
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical (according to author absolute)
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 29
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Languages where the form for metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)' also denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)' but not 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)': Gooniyandi (Bunaban, Australian), Yaouré (Mande, Niger-Congo), Kunimaipa (Trans-New Guinea); for details see .
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf. , .

Result No. 68
Number 1467
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is no special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is no special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 30
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Languages having inclusive/exclusive opposition in the 2nd person, e.g. Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Congo) (Wiesemann (ed.) 1986: viii). ??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian) (Elena Filimonova, Frans Plank).
Bavarian German (Simon 2000).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal follows from

Result No. 69
Number 1468
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it also denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it also denotes the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, non-participant, number, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 31
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian)(Elena Filimonova, Frans Plank)).
Bavarian German (Simon 2000).
By Elena Filimonova 24.07.2007, 13:45
Nkozi (NW Bantu, Niger-Congo), Yakut (Turkic, Altaic) (Sokolovskaja 1980); Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Kongo)
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 70
Number 1469
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer' in singular;
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(c) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)';
(d) 'non-participant'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot include among its meanings the following metapersons:
(a) 'hearer' in singular;
(b) 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(c) 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)';
(d) 'non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, speaker, hearer, non-participant, number, singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 33
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
To (b) and (c): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European)
To (d): Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980).
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:31
To (a): Khmer (Mon-Khmer, Austroasiatic), Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea), Thai (Daic, Austroasiatic), Sioux (Siouan), Siyin (Burmic, Sino-Tibetan), Haitian, Martinique (both Creole, French-based), Sranan (Creole, English-based), some Spanish dialects spoken in America with the so-called 'voseo', Russian (Slavic, Indo-European), French (Romance, Indo-European), Hindi, Marathi (both Indic, Indo-European) and other languages, where the form 2PL is used as a polite form addressing the hearer in the singular.
Aymara, Jaqaru (Andean), where personal pronominal forms are not specified for number, i.e. the form X can be used referring to 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' , 'hearer' in non-singular, as well as to 'hearer' in singular. E.g. Aymara YUMA means 'thou, you' (for details see Hardman-de-Bautista 1974: 32-3, Hardman 1966).
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf. .

Result No. 71
Number 1470
Original In all languages, if the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning denoted by some form, then this form must denote also metapersons 'hearer' in the non-singular (cf. universal ) and/or 'hearer' in the singular (cf. universal ).
Standardized IF the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning denoted by a form, THEN this form must denote also metapersons 'hearer' in the non-singular and/or 'hearer' in the singular .
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 34
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 72
Number 1471
Original In all languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it cannot include among its meanings the metaperson 'speaker' .
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot include among its meanings the metaperson 'speaker'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, 1st, hearer, non-participant, speaker
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 32
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 73
Number 1472
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is no special form to denote the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized In an overwhelming majority of languages, there is no special form to denote the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 35
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
The same as .
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal is derived from .

Result No. 74
Number 1473
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it denotes also the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it denotes also the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, 2nd, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 94, U 36
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
2. Languages distinguishing between a neutral (or unrestricted) form and a form referring to the restricted set of participants, either to inclusive or to exclusive: Gooniyandi (Bunaban, Australian) (mentioned by Testelec 1995: 582, for details see also McGregor 1990), Yaouré (Mande, Niger-Congo) (for details see Hopkins 1986: 192), Kunimaipa (Trans-New Guinea) (for details see Pence 1968, Geary 1977: 17-1Cool (p.c. M. Cysouw).
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:32
1. Languages having a tripartite opposition, that is distinguishing between three forms: inclusive, exclusive, and a neutral one, e.g. Kele (NW Bantu, Niger-Congo) (mentioned by Sokolovskaja); Miriwoong (Djeragan, Australian), for details see McGregor 1990.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. Cf.

Result No. 75
Number 1474
Original If some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' then:
(a) in some languages it also denotes the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(b) in other languages it does not denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' , THEN:
(a) in some languages it also denotes the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)';
(b) in other languages it does not denote the metaperson 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 37
Counterexamples

Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. The languages are equally distributed between groups (a) and (b).

Result No. 76
Number 1475
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it cannot denote the metaperson 'non-participant' .
Standardized IF a form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot denote the metaperson 'non-participant' .
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 38
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980), where inclusive pronoun a:pan, i.e. the form denoting metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is used as a polite address to 'hearer' and 'non-participant'.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
1. Sokolovskaya differentiates between the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 77
Number 1476
Original In an overwhelming majority of languages, if some form denotes the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', then it cannot denote the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker';
(b) 'hearer';
(c) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Standardized IF some form denotes metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', THEN it cannot denote the following metapersons:
(a) 'speaker';
(b) 'hearer';
(c) 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality statistical
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 39
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
To (b) and (c): Haitian (Creole, French-based), Navajo (Athabaskan), Marathi (Indic, Indo-European) (Sokolovskaja 1980);
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:33
To (a): Kawi (=Old Javanese), Javanese (both Sundic, W. Malayo-Polynesian), Nimboran (Trans-New Guinea) (Sokolovskaja 1980); Marind (Trans-New Guinea)(Drabbe 1955 [Boelaars 1950: 2]) has a single form denoting the metapersons 'speaker' and 'speaker + hearer(s)' or 'speaker' and 'speaker + non-participant(s)'.
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 78
Number 1477
Original In all languages, if the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning of a certain form, then this form must also denote the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' (cf. ) and /or 'speaker'.
Standardized IF the metaperson 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' is not the only meaning of a form, THEN this form must also denote the metapersons 'speaker + hearer(s)' and /or 'speaker'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 40
Counterexamples
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Comments
By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49
Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

Result No. 79
Number 1478
Original If in a language there are no special forms distinguishing the metapersons 'speaker' and 'speaker + hearer(s)' or 'speaker' and 'speaker + non-participant(s)', then there are no forms that differentiate between the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular and in the non-singular and between the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular and in the non-singular.
Standardized IF there are no special forms distinguishing the metapersons 'speaker' and 'speaker + hearer(s)' or 'speaker' and 'speaker + non-participant(s)', THEN there are no forms that differentiate between the metaperson 'hearer' in the singular and in the non-singular and between the metaperson 'non-participant' in the singular and in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, non-participant, number, singular, non-singular
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type implication
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 95, U 41
Counterexamples
By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:34
Marind (Trans-New Guinea)(Drabbe 1955 [Boelaars 1950: 2]) does not have different forms for the metapersons 'speaker' and 'speaker + hearer(s)' or 'speaker' and 'speaker + non-participant(s)', however, it differentiates between the metaperson 'hearer' in singular and in non-singular and between the metaperson 'non-participant' in singular and in non-singular.
Comments
By Elena Filimonova 24.07.2007, 13:41
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. According to Sokolovskaja, this universal is equivalent to: IF there are forms distinguishing metapersons (a)'speaker' and 'speaker + hearer(s)' and/or 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)' or (b)'speaker' and 'speaker + non-participant(s)', then there are forms distinguishing metapersons 'hearer' and 'hearers' or 'hearer(s)+ non-participant(s)' on the one hand and metapersons 'non-participant
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understood everything up to that last huge block. I trust the info there is very fascinating, hovewer I just couldn't wrap my head around it logically.
Also, frankly, it's generally a bit hard for me to understand information in such a dry form.
Anyway, I appreciate your effort, thanks! Smile

Eldin-sempai, the letters your software didn't display were probably the Japanese kanji /sempai kouhai anata kimi/. Is this your common software, as in, are you forcefully unable to read/see Japanese kanji on a daily basis?

[quote=Eldin-sempai]I believe that there are natlangs which have no personal pronouns occuring as independent words.
But AFAIK all do mark person somehow. [/quote]
If we believe in Wikipedia (mme si, admittedly, it is not the wisest thing to do) "all known languages containt personal pronouns". It's a bit unclear if it means "independent words for personal pronouns" or "a way to mark person". The latter is obviously needed for a language to be functional and easy for human usage, but I see it possible to not have the former.
What is your personal oppinion on this?

The way I understand it, in all natlangs there is at least one word for the metapersons "speaker", "hearer" and "non-participant". My question still stands though, what are the possibilities of combining "hearer" and "non-participant"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kiri wrote:
I understood everything up to that last huge block. I trust the info there is very fascinating, hovewer I just couldn't wrap my head around it logically.
Also, frankly, it's generally a bit hard for me to understand information in such a dry form.
Anyway, I appreciate your effort, thanks! Smile

It's just what I found on The Universals Archive by searching for "keywords: 'Personal Pronoun'".

By limiting my search to

Keywords: Personal Pronoun
Domain: Lexicon
Type: Unconditional
Status: Achronic
Quality: Absolute

I got six results; namely, universals number 1320, 1439, 1440, 1449, 1454, and 1459.

You could just look at those:

Quote:
Result No. 1
Number 1320
Original Among the deictic elements of every human language is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee.
Standardized Among the deictic elements of every human language is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee.
Formula
Keywords deictic elements, personal pronoun, speaker, addressee
Domain lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis unspecified
Source Hockett 1963: 21
Counterexamples

Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

In other words, first and second person singular pronouns are universal. A more interesting question is whether these forms are in fact necessarily dedicated to these functions, or also have other functions, deictic (here/there) or as social-role designations (servant/master).



Result No. 2
Number 1439
Original Every one of the seven metapersons, i.e. 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is expressed in the pronominal system of every language.
Standardized Every one of the seven metapersons, i.e. 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', is expressed in the pronominal system of every language.
Formula
Keywords pronoun, personal pronoun, person
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.

Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 1
Counterexamples

Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

1. If a language lacks a special form to denote one of the seven metapersons, this metaperson will be expressed together with another metaperson in one pronominal form.

2. Cf. similar but less precise claims by Hockett (): Among the deictic elements of every human language there is one that denotes the speaker and one that denotes the addressee; and by Greenberg (): All languages have pronominal categories involving at least three persons and two numbers.



Result No. 3
Number 1440
Original In no language are there pronominal forms differentiating the number of elements within a metaperson, e.g. special forms for 'hearer + hearer + ... + non-participant' and 'hearer + non-participant + ... + non-participant'.
Standardized In no language are there pronominal forms differentiating the number of elements within a metaperson, e.g. special forms for 'hearer + hearer + ... + non-participant' and 'hearer + non-participant + ... + non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords pronoun, personal pronoun, person, number
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.

Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 90, U 2
Counterexamples

Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).



Result No. 4
Number 1449
Original In no language is there a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Standardized In no language is there a special form to denote the metaperson 'hearer' in the non-singular.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 2nd, hearer, number, non-singular, inclusive, exclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality statistical (according to author absolute)
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.

Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 91, U 11
Counterexamples By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

Languages having inclusive/exclusive opposition in the 2nd person, e.g. Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Kordofanian) (Wiesemann 1986: viii). ??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian) (Elena Filimonova, Frans Plank). Bavarian German (Simon 2000).


Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal follows from .

3. Cf. a similar statement by Greenberg, .



Result No. 5
Number 1454
Original In all languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Standardized In all languages, there is a special form to denote the metaperson 'non-participant'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 3rd, non-participant
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.

Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 16
Counterexamples

Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).



Result No. 6
Number 1459
Original In no language is there a special form to denote a metaperson 'speaker+hearer(s)'.
Standardized In no language is there a special form to denote a metaperson 'speaker+hearer(s)'.
Formula
Keywords personal pronoun, person, 1st, speaker, hearer, inclusive
Domain inflection, syntax, lexicon
Type unconditional
Status achronic
Quality absolute
Basis 400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.

Source Sokolovskaja 1980: 92, U 21
Counterexamples By Elena Filimonova 20.07.2007, 10:28

And what about languages that have a 1INCL DU pronoun?


Comments By Frans Plank 03.08.2006, 09:49

1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. This universal is derived from


And don't spend a lot of time trying to understand the difficult ones; if one seems difficult, skip it and go to an easier one, coming back when and if you feel like it.

Also, note that 1449 and 1459 (may?) have counterexamples.

Anyway, one of the main things to get is the references.
Quote:
Hockett, Charles F. (1963). The problem of universals in language. In Greenberg (ed.) 1963, 1-29.

and
Quote:
Sokolovskaja, Natalia K. (1980). Nekotorye semanticeskie universalii v sisteme licnyx mestoimenij. [Some semantic universals in systems of personal pronouns.] In Vardul' (ed.), 84-102.



Kiri wrote:
Eldin-sempai, the letters your software didn't display were probably the Japanese kanji /sempai kouhai anata kimi/. Is this your common software, as in, are you forcefully unable to read/see Japanese kanji on a daily basis?

The home computer at my daughter's house couldn't handle it. But when I signed on hear at the public library -- once it was open again -- I could see them and get "Google Translate" to tell me what they meant, both in Japanese and in Chinese (but Google Translate guessed they were Japanese).

Kiri wrote:
Eldin-sempai wrote:
I believe that there are natlangs which have no personal pronouns occuring as independent words.
But AFAIK all do mark person somehow.

If we believe in Wikipedia (mme si, admittedly, it is not the wisest thing to do) "all known languages containt personal pronouns". It's a bit unclear if it means "independent words for personal pronouns" or "a way to mark person". The latter is obviously needed for a language to be functional and easy for human usage, but I see it possible to not have the former.
What is your personal opinion on this?

Well, it's hard to say.

As I said, I thought I read somewhere that some languages don't have free, independent personal-pronoun words.

Quote:
Number 67
Phenomenon a three-way distinction among personal pronouns between 'singular speaker', 'singular non-speaker' (i.e. addressee or other), 'plural' (any speech-act role or combination of roles).
Where found Balante (West Atlantic, Niger-Congo)
Domain morphology: inflection
Subdomain categories and their domains: person, number
Keywords personal pronoun
Type nonesuch
Universals violated none
Source Wiesemann, Ursula (1986). Preface. In Wiesemann (ed.) 1986, vii-ix.
Wiesemann, Ursula (ed.) (1986). Pronominal Systems. Tbingen: Narr.

marks only "1st person Singular", "non-1st Singular", and "Plural -- any person".


Quote:
Number 119
Phenomenon
"conjunct vs. disjunct" system of (bound) person marking, with the conjunct form referring to the speaker in statements and the addressee in questions, and the disjunct form referring to everything else (addressee in statements, speaker in questions (where this makes sense), non-SAP in statements and questions)
Where found Awa Pit, Tsafiki (Barbacoan); Newar, Lhasa-Tibetan, Lhomi (Tibeto-Burman)
Domain morphology: inflection
Subdomain categories and their domains: person, number
Keywords personal pronouns, person
Type rarum
Universals violated none
Source Hale, Austin (1980). Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Ron Trail (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics No. 7, 95-106. (Pacific Linguistics, A53.) Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
DeLancey, Scott (1992). The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25: 39-62.
Bickel, Balthasar (2000). Person and evidence in Himalayan languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23: 1-12.
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols, in press. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 2nd, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8.1.2.
Curnow, Timothy Jowan (2000). Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Unpublished, Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, LaTrobe University, Melbourne.

may have only bound person-marking. Also, it may mark only "1st vs non-1st" in declaratives and only "2nd vs non-2nd" in questions.


Kiri wrote:
The way I understand it, in all natlangs there is at least one word for the metapersons "speaker", "hearer" and "non-participant". My question still stands though, what are the possibilities of combining "hearer" and "non-participant"?

Here's my attempt at a table:

Code:
 1SG
 2SG    2DU    2TRI    2PAU    2PL
 3SG    3DU    3TRI    3PAU    3PL
       12DU   12TRI   12PAU   12PL
       13DU   13TRI   13PAU   13PL
       23DU   23TRI   23PAU   23PL
             123TRI  123PAU  123PL


Those in the "1" row include only the speaker.
Those in the "2" row include only addressees.
Those in the "3" row include only non-speech-act-participants.
Those in the "12" row include the speaker and one (or more) addressee(s), but not any non-speech-act-participants.
Those in the "13" row include the speaker and one (or more) non-speech-act-participant(s), but not any addressees.
Those in the "23" row include one (or more) addressee(s) and one (or more) non-speech-act-participant(s), but not the speaker.
Those in the "123" row include the speaker and one (or more) addressee(s) and one (or more) non-speech-act-participant(s).

Those in the "SG" column just add up to only one individual.
Those in the "DU" column add up to exactly two individuals.
Those in the "TRI" column add up to exactly three individuals.
Those in the "PAU" column add up to a few individuals.
Those in the "PL" column add up to many individuals.

They might be further inflected (or whatever) for gender and/or case.

_____________________________________________________________

"Fourth person" could be one of several things.
It could mean "obviative third-person".
It could mean "long-distance anaphor" or "long-distance reflexive". These are pronouns that can occur even in deeply-embedded subordinate clauses (e.g. a subordinate clause of a subordinate clause of a subordinate clause) and still refer to the Subject of the Main clause.

In a conlang talked about on the CONLANG-L mailing-list, there were four persons; their "3rd person" was something between our 2nd person and our 3rd person, and their "4th person" was a subset of our "3rd person.
"3rd person" consisted of "authorized over-hearers"; people not directly addressed but whom the speaker and/or the addressee wished to "overhear", or, at least, was aware were overhearing. These "authorized overhearers" would be ordinarily expected to do nothing with the information imparted in the speech-act, but would be expected to do something in certain extraordinary circumstances.
"4th person" consisted of inanimate objects and people who were absent from the speech-act (and also of unauthorized eaves-droppers, I guess).

In Algonquian languages, not only are there obviatives, but also "further obviatives". In Algonquian at least, and AFAIK in any language with "further obviatives", "further obviatives" only occur as possessors of obviatives. So there's a "defective 5th person".

Lots of languages have "logophoric pronouns".
In a subordinate clause, a "logophoric first-person pronoun" is a 3rd-person pronoun standing for the Subject of its matrix clause; a "logophoric second-person pronoun" is a 3rd-person pronoun standing for the Indirect Object (or, in dechticaetiative languages, the Primary Object) of its matrix clause.

Some people call the indefinite pronoun "one" (or its equivalents in other languages) a "fourth person pronoun".

So, you could easily have four or even five persons, though I'm not sure you'd be interested in, say, all 15 "metapersons" you could get out of 4 persons;
1
2
3
4
12
13
14
23
24
34
123
124
134
234
1234

_____________________________________________________________

Is any of that more helpful or easier to understand?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission


Last edited by eldin raigmore on Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, this is much clearer! Thank you for your help!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kiri wrote:
Ok, this is much clearer! Thank you for your help!

Good! Cool Thanks for letting me know. Smile

_____________________________________________________________

According either to Greenberg, or to Hockett, or to someone else in that book Greenberg edited, there are two major variations in a language's personal-pronoun system.
  1. It either does, or does not, have a dual number.
  2. It either does, or does not, distinguish between inclusive-of-addresse and exclusive-of-addressee in non-singular 1st-person pronouns.


So, ignoring gender and case, and disallowing 4th-persons and trial number and paucal numbers, and allowing only one plural number, we might have the following 11 pronouns for a language whose pronoun system has both a dual number and a distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL;
Code:
1SG 
2SG   2DU=23DU   2PL=23PL
3SG   3DU        3PL
     12DU       12PL=123PL
     13DU       13PL



Ignoring gender and case, and disallowing 4th-persons and grammatical numbers other than SG, DU, and PL, we might have the following 9 pronouns for a language whose pronoun system has a dual number but has no distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL;
Code:
1SG
     12DU=13DU  12PL=13PL=123PL
2SG   2DU=23DU   2PL=23PL
3SG   3DU        3PL



Ignoring gender and case, and disallowing 4th-persons any numbers but SG and PL, we might have the following 7 pronouns for a language whose pronoun system has no dual number but does have a distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL;
Code:
1SG 
2SG   2PL=23PL
3SG   3PL
     12PL=123PL
     13PL



Still ignoring gender and case, still disallowing 4th-persons and grammatical numbers other than SG and PL, we might have the following 6 pronouns for a language whose pronoun system has no dual number and also has no distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL;
Code:
1SG
     12PL=13PL=123PL
2SG   2PL=23PL
3SG   3PL


_____________________________________________________________

Now, Greenberg's universal doesn't require two numbers in every person, nor does it require three persons in every number.

_____________________________________________________________

added in [EDIT]:
I (along with others) once had a jokelang (or rather the beginnings of one), that had, for every trichotomy found in many other languages, its own three-way system, as follows.

* Sometimes a language has two morphological tenses. These often are "past" vs "non-past", or "future" vs "non-future".
Our 'lang's three tenses were "nonpast", "nonpresent", and "nonfuture".

* Some languages have gender-markings of "masculine" vs "nonmasculine", or "feminine" vs "nonfeminine".
Our 'lang's three gender-markings were "nonmasculine", "nonfeminine", and "nonneuter".

* Some languages sometimes have a "non-first" person-marking. Others sometimes have a "non-second" person-marking; yet others sometimes have a "non-third" person-marking.
Our 'lang's three person-markings were "nonfirst", "nonsecond", and "nonthird".

* We could also have had "nonsingular", "nondual", and "nonplural" as our grammatical numbers.

Naturally that would leave many clauses ambiguous.

[/EDIT]
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This has certainly given me a lot to think about! Smile

Now, I have an even more specific question Very Happy
As my experience with natlangs so far shows, the personal pronouns more or less match with the inflections of verbs. C'est dire, if a language that inflects verbs according to person has a word for "1SG", it will also have such a verb inflection, and vice versa. (Well, Latvian 3SG=3PL might just be an exception that proves the rule).
How about, par example, having a distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL in the pronouns but not in verb inflection? Or the other way around?
Or am I looking at this wrongly and such a rule does not exist?

How about having a pretty standart verb inflection paradigm but, like, only two pronouns - "first" and "non-first"? (I don't know where 1PL falls here)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baldash



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 86
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having the verb inflection being less precise than the independent pronouns you only have to look at English: the distinction between "am", "are", and "is" is less precise than the distinction in the independent pronouns. The distinction between "have" and "has" is even more less precise.


Maybe you could have verb inflection that distinguishes non-third and third persons, and independent pronouns that distinguish first and non-first persons, so that e.g. if you use the pronoun for a non-first singular subject with a verb inflected for non-third subject, you get a second person singular subject.


Anyway... My conlang distinguishes these roots (or rather stems with inflections not relevant for this discussion ignored):

R1 = 1 SG
R2 = 12 PL (at least two)
R3 = 123 PL (at least three)
R4 = 13 PL (at least two)
R5 = 2 SG
R6 = 23 PL (at least two)
R7 = 3 SG

Then, the language has nominal morphology for the distinction between singular (unmarked), dual, plural (at least three), and unspecified.

The pronouns behave as ordinary nouns, and all of the above stems could get the inflection.

However, non-singular versions of R1 is rarely used outside of coauthored books and R2, R4, and R6 couldn't be changed to distinguish between dual and plural, because the semantics of all inflections are absolutely regular (e.g. a dualized version of R4 refers to at least two speakers and at least two third persons, NOT to exactly one speaker and exactly one third person), so those forms are not commonly used.

(The "unspecified" option removes information about the number, so that e.g. when R5 is inflected with the "unspecified number" affix, it refers to at least one addressee, it becomes number neutral. However, because of the semantics of R2, R3, R4, and R6, inflecting those latter stems with the "unspecified" affix doesn't change the meaning (though it may have some unexplored pragmatic effect).)

Thus R1, R5, and R7 distinguish singular, dual, plural, and unspecified number, while R2, R3, R4, and R6 doesn't, and the language distinguishes clusivity for three persons exhaustively.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baldash wrote:
Maybe you could have verb inflection that distinguishes non-third and third persons, and independent pronouns that distinguish first and non-first persons, so that e.g. if you use the pronoun for a non-first singular subject with a verb inflected for non-third subject, you get a second person singular subject.

This seems quirky, but I kinda like it! Perhaps I'll have to try it in one of my upcoming conlangs Smile Do you know any that does this, have you used it yourself or did you come up with this just now?

Quote:
R1 = 1 SG
R2 = 12 PL (at least two)
R3 = 123 PL (at least three)
R4 = 13 PL (at least two)
R5 = 2 SG
R6 = 23 PL (at least two)
R7 = 3 SG

Then, the language has nominal morphology for the distinction between singular (unmarked), dual, plural (at least three), and unspecified.
(..) (e.g. a dualized version of R4 refers to at least two speakers and at least two third persons, NOT to exactly one speaker and exactly one third person)


Did I understand this correctly? So, if the nominal morphology is singular (unmarked?), R3 is linguistically seen as singular, although it is technically plural? Or am I misunderstanding things?
What for would one use when speaking to two women about oneself, them and three other people?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baldash



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 86
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kiri wrote:
This seems quirky, but I kinda like it! Perhaps I'll have to try it in one of my upcoming conlangs Smile Do you know any that does this, have you used it yourself or did you come up with this just now?

I've thought about it before, but never used it in anything beyond the daily sketch stage. I don't know any language that does it.


Kiri wrote:
Quote:
R1 = 1 SG
R2 = 12 PL (at least two)
R3 = 123 PL (at least three)
R4 = 13 PL (at least two)
R5 = 2 SG
R6 = 23 PL (at least two)
R7 = 3 SG

Then, the language has nominal morphology for the distinction between singular (unmarked), dual, plural (at least three), and unspecified.
(..) (e.g. a dualized version of R4 refers to at least two speakers and at least two third persons, NOT to exactly one speaker and exactly one third person)


Did I understand this correctly? So, if the nominal morphology is singular (unmarked?), R3 is linguistically seen as singular, although it is technically plural? Or am I misunderstanding things?

What I meant with "unmarked" in the context of singular is that singular is "marked" by the absence of any other number affix, like in English.

R2, R3, R4, and R6 are singular grammatically and plural semantically like "the collection" in English. (If you dualize "the collection" you get "the two collections", not "the collection composed of two items".)


Kiri wrote:
What for would one use when speaking to two women about oneself, them and three other people?

You would use R3, without any number affix (thus grammatically singular). R3 refers to at least one speaker, at least one addressee and at least one third person, but there is no requirement that you need the same number of each person. (Singular R3 is hypernymous to its own dual and plural.)


I sometimes label them like this:

R2 = exclusive inclusive we
R3 = inclusive inclusive we
R4 = exclusive we
R5 = thou/thee
R5+DU = exclusive dual you
R5+PL = exclusive plural you
R6 = inclusive plural you
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, now I get it Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My own conlang, and Baldash's conlang, notwithstanding: in natlangs it appears there is no difference between, say, 1+1+1+2 and 1+1+2+2 and 1+2+2+2; these are all 12 (1st person inclusive of 2nd person but not of 3rd person) with whatever grammatical number goes with "a group consisting of four individuals" (likely paucal or plural).

Similarly, there's no difference in natlangs between say, 1+1+1+3 and 1+1+3+3 and 1+3+3+3. Nor, between 2+2+2+3 and 2+2+3+3 and 2+3+3+3.

Nor, between 1+2+3+3 and 1+2+2+3 and 1+1+2+3.

It looks like the "metapersons" -- that is, the combinations of person and clusivity -- that natlangs "care about", is, maximally, the following:
  • includes a speaker
    • 1 (includes at least one speaker, but no addressees, and no non-SPAs)
    • also includes an addressee
      • 12 (includes at least one speaker and at least one addressee, but no non-SPAs)
      • 123 (includes at least one speaker and at least one addressee and at least one non-SPA)
    • 13 (includes at least one speaker and at least one non-SPA, but no addressees)
  • excludes speaker but includes an addressee
    • 2 (includes at least one addressee, but no speakers and no non-SAPs)
    • 23 (includes at least one addressee and at least one non-SAP, but no speakers)
  • 3 (includes at least one non-SAP, but no speakers and no addressees)
And these then interact with number; and, in some languages and some combinations, these may interact with gender and/or case.

Baldash's conlang allows 1+1 (1DU) and 1+1+1 (1PL), just making them rare (e.g. multi-author texts, and, I suppose, chanting or responsive reading or singing in unison).
My conlang just doesn't allow the 1st-person-exclusive-of-2nd-exclusive-of-3rd to occur in any number other than Singular.

In my conlang, for a 1st-person pronoun to be non-Singular, it must include either at least one 2nd person, or at least one 3rd person, or both.

In natlangs, and both my and Baldash's conlangs, 12 and 13 and 23 don't occur in the singular. The smallest grammatical numbers these can occur with in my conlang and in Baldash's conlang, is Dual.

In natlangs, and both my and Baldash's conlangs, 123 doesn't occur in the dual nor in the singular. The smallest grammatical numbers these can occur with in my conlang is Trial, and in Baldash's conlang it's Plural.

_____________________________________________________________

Kiri wrote:
Now, I have an even more specific question Very Happy
As my experience with natlangs so far shows, the personal pronouns more or less match with the inflections of verbs. C'est dire, if a language that inflects verbs according to person has a word for "1SG", it will also have such a verb inflection, and vice versa. (Well, Latvian 3SG=3PL might just be an exception that proves the rule).

So is English.

Also, for several languages (in particular some (western?) Northern European language), finite verbs do not agree at all with any participant in any way. Yet they still have a full set of independent personal pronouns.


Kiri wrote:
How about, par example, having a distinction between 1INCL and 1EXCL in the pronouns but not in verb inflection? Or the other way around?

See Combined Features 39A Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Independent Pronouns and 40A Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Verbal Inflection.

Note that there are languages with 1INCL vs 1EXCL vs 1SG in pronouns, that have every value in verbal agreement; no agreement in person, or "we" same as "I", or no 1INCL vs 1EXCL, or "inclusive only" whatever that means (it means there's an agreement that specifically means "me and you (possibly others)" and another that means "me and somebody else (maybe including you, maybe not)").

Also note that there are languages with no person-marking of verbs, that have every situation in pronouns; no "we", "we" same as "I", no incl/excl distinction, a 1INCL vs a 1EXCL, and "inclusive only".


Kiri wrote:
Or am I looking at this wrongly and such a rule does not exist?

I think that's it.

Kiri wrote:
How about having a pretty standart verb inflection paradigm but, like, only two pronouns - "first" and "non-first"? (I don't know where 1PL falls here)

http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/nav/browse.php?number=67 is a language that basically does something like that.

Also see http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/nav/browse.php?number=34 and http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/nav/browse.php?number=119.

_____________________________________________________________

Kiri wrote:
Baldash wrote:
Maybe you could have verb inflection that distinguishes non-third and third persons, and independent pronouns that distinguish first and non-first persons, so that e.g. if you use the pronoun for a non-first singular subject with a verb inflected for non-third subject, you get a second person singular subject.

This seems quirky, but I kinda like it! Perhaps I'll have to try it in one of my upcoming conlangs Smile Do you know any that does this, have you used it yourself or did you come up with this just now?


According to Greville Corbett's book "Number", certain Native North American languages have a "constructed(?) dual" (maybe it's "constructive dual"?).

Either you use a plural noun/pronoun with a singular verb to denote the dual, or vice-versa, you use a singular noun/pronoun with a plural verb; I can't remember which.

So, the kind of idea Baldash is talking about, is attested in some natlangs, though with regard to number rather than person as far as I know.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, this has been great for me! Thanks to you both!

If anyone has anything else to contribute, please do! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kiri wrote:
If anyone has anything else to contribute, please do! Smile

Just about to! Smile


Kiri wrote:
Baldash wrote:
R1 = 1 SG
R2 = 12 PL (at least two)
R3 = 123 PL (at least three)
R4 = 13 PL (at least two)
R5 = 2 SG
R6 = 23 PL (at least two)
R7 = 3 SG
Then, the language has nominal morphology for the distinction between singular (unmarked), dual, plural (at least three), and unspecified.
(..) (e.g. a dualized version of R4 refers to at least two speakers and at least two third persons, NOT to exactly one speaker and exactly one third person)

Did I understand this correctly? So, if the nominal morphology is singular (unmarked?), R3 is linguistically seen as singular, although it is technically plural? Or am I misunderstanding things?
What for would one use when speaking to two women about oneself, them and three other people?


(As I mentioned previously, Baldash's conlang distinguishes 1+1+3+3 from 1+1+3 and 1+3+3; but in a natlang, they would all be 12PL.)

I have read that, for some natlangs, the pronoun that means 12DU sounds and looks Singular; that is, it analogizes with 1SG and with 2SG, rather than with, say, 2DU.

I can't find precisely the evidence at the moment.
But I think you'll find it among these.
Especially look at page 432 of this book, and nearby earlier and later pages; also, find that book's references and see what they have to say.
Or it might be in Payne's "Describing Morphosyntax".

(My guess is that the form of that prounoun that sounds and "looks" Dual, if the language actually has a Dual, would actually refer to three people; 1+2+2 (and maybe 1+1+2 and maybe 1+2+3). But that's just my guess so it may not be important.)

See http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/questionnaire/linguaQ.php#morphology section 2.1.2 Pronouns.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity#References

Also see http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/questionnaire/linguaQ.php#morphology section 2.1.3 Verb Morphology.

See whether you can find a description of person and number and clusivity in Djeebbana, also known as Ndjebbana, Gunavidji, Gunivugi, Kunibidji, or Gombudj. Especially see what you can find out about its pronouns. This would be good, but I don't have a JSTOR account and don't know how to get one nor whether I could afford one.

Also see the EUROTYP database.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baldash



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 86
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eldin raigmore wrote:
(As I mentioned previously, Baldash's conlang distinguishes 1+1+3+3 from 1+1+3 and 1+3+3; but in a natlang, they would all be 12PL.)

Yes... and no. Sort of. 1+1+3+3, 1+3+3+3, 1+1+1+3, 1+1+3, and 1+3+3 are all referred to by the simple R4. It just so happens that 1+1+3+3 has the option to be referred to with R4+DU, which could be used, but usually isn't. It's not part of the grammar or lexicon, it just so happens that to prevent the form R4+DU from existing I would need to add a rule to the language with no other purpose than prohibiting R4+DU. The language is supposed to be completely regular (it's a loglang) and deictic roots are handled the same way as any other roots belonging to the only open class of roots. The existence of R4+DU is just a logical consequence that follows from other parts of the language. I haven't decided that R4+DU should exist in my conlang, it just does automatically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kiri



Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I could definitely see a semantical distinction between 1+1+3+3 represented as R4+DU as opposed to R4. One could be adding stress to the fact, that two pairs are being refferenced instead of 4 random people Very Happy
Or something like that. I don't know if it actually works in your lang Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baldash



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 86
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps. Though in the case of my conlang the difference must be pragmatic rather than semantic, since R4 doesn't refer to a bound set in any way.

It would be interesting to see what daughter langs the loglang could mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eldin raigmore
Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baldash wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:
(As I mentioned previously, Baldash's conlang distinguishes 1+1+3+3 from 1+1+3 and 1+3+3; but in a natlang, they would all be 12PL.)

Yes... and no. Sort of. 1+1+3+3, 1+3+3+3, 1+1+1+3, 1+1+3, and 1+3+3 are all referred to by the simple R4. It just so happens that 1+1+3+3 has the option to be referred to with R4+DU, which could be used, but usually isn't. It's not part of the grammar or lexicon, it just so happens that to prevent the form R4+DU from existing I would need to add a rule to the language with no other purpose than prohibiting R4+DU. The language is supposed to be completely regular (it's a loglang) and deictic roots are handled the same way as any other roots belonging to the only open class of roots. The existence of R4+DU is just a logical consequence that follows from other parts of the language. I haven't decided that R4+DU should exist in my conlang, it just does automatically.

Oh, I see.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleks Forum Index -> Conlangs
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme ACID 2003 par HEDONISM Web Hosting Directory


Start Your Own Video Sharing Site

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com