Roy McCoy | Re: Grammar (suggestion) - Based on the work of C. George Boeree

• Autor: Roy McCoy (“Mr_Roy_McCoy”)
• Tema: Re: Grammar (suggestion) - Based on the work of C. George Boeree
• Data: 2002-09-25 15:27
• Mesaje: 232 (a supra, presedente, seguente)

Bjorn scribin:

>> This implies that "te" is essentially an intimate form in EP - is it?
>> Might it be a good idea to change this to something like "There are no
>> 'formal' or 'informal' variants of the second-person pronouns"?
>
> Hmmmm... I was about to agree with you ... but then again.....
> In several languages the polite and formal form of "you" is plural.
> "Te" is singular, so I think it is intimate an informal.

Sed tio semblan terure complici la pronoma tabelo, tiele ce "vos" devun
aperi ance en loa singulara flanco ciele dua, formale singulara formo.
Pri tio mi nepre protestun, e tiale mi reiran ne nur al Esperanta "mi"
sed ance al Esperanta "vi", cia posedan la signifa avantajo ne havi nuanso
de intimeso, no de formaleso.

But this seems to terribly complicate the pronoun table, so that "vos"
would have to appear also in its singular side as a second, formally
singular form. I would certainly protest about that, and I therefore
go back not only to Esperanto "mi" but also to Esperanto "vi", which
possesses the significant advantage of not having a nuance of intimacy,
nor of formality.

>> but I'm at the same time inclined to ask whether there might be ambiguity
>> in such cases owing to the use of the basic pronouns as possessives.
>
> You are rigth. It is ambiguous. But that's the price to pay to avoid "ma",
> "ta" etc.

Sed se oni havan conseqensa ajectiva finaso, ne haban problemo usi tia je
pronomos por la posesivo: mia, via, lia etp.

But if one has a regular adjective ending, there's no problem using it
with pronouns for the possessive: mia, via, lia etc.

Roy