From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 28042
Date: 2003-12-06
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Yes, that's clearly what I implied.
>> Some East Asian languages get by without them, so no.
>>
>> However, even in situations of pronoun avoidance, certain turns of
>phrase
>> tend to become standardized as referring to first, second (and
>third)
>> person. They can either become full-fledged personal pronouns
>again, or,
>> if the social pressures haven't changed, they can become taboo
>again and
>> replaced by a new set of standardized circumlocutions, and so on,
>and so
>> on. Not unlike what happens to nouns and verbs denoting sexual
>actions,
>> ethnic minorities, etc.
>
>The next question I have then, is: Given that such languages exist,
>are they the result of what you call "pronoun avoidance", which would
>entail that the language once had pronouns, but lost them;
>or areThere's no such "original state".
>they a continuation of the original state of pronounless affairs?
>> *Language* requires a certain amount of self-reflection. There isThe fact is that we *have* come up with words for those concepts. Since no
>always a
>> speaker (1st person), a spoken-to (2nd. person) and a spoken-about
>(3rd.
>> person), whether overtly grammaticalized or not.
>>
>
>Non sequitur. The fact that that situation exists in all speech acts
>does not entail that the speakers of the language have reflected on
>that fact, or further that they have formed the corresponding
>concepts in their minds, or further that they have come up with words
>for those concepts.
>Coco, the 'talking' gorilla, doesn't useShe does. It's not clear, however, whether she knows the difference
>pronouns, afaIk.