Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!swrinde!pipex!uunet!EU.net!sun4nl!mcv
From: mcv@inter.NL.net (Miguel Carrasquer)
Subject: Re: Personal pronouns, antecedents and number agreement
Message-ID: <CxszoG.oM@inter.NL.net>
Organization: /etc/organization
References: <1994Oct5.181937.33867@waikato.ac.nz> <Cx9L8u.C7y@acsu.buffalo.edu> <37squl$m94@tardis.trl.OZ.AU>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 06:07:27 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <37squl$m94@tardis.trl.OZ.AU>,
Jacques Guy <jbm@newsserver.trl.oz.au> wrote:
>
>So wouldn't it seem that English is about to lose the singular/plural
>distinction in personal pronouns? We already have "you", which has
>swamped out the singular "thou". We have the royal "we", which
>has now fallen in the public's domain (sic). Just a little more
>effort, English speakers, and we'll have no number on personal
>pronouns!  In 1000 years, when the causes of this evolution are
>lost in the mists of time, 

We can't even say what the causes are today... if there even is such
a phenomenon.  What do y'all think?  

>linguists will argue that this strange
>feature of English (by then spoken by some tiny tribes of silicon
>freaks) is due to a substratum. Basque, Papuan, or Pictish. Or
>Klingon, take your pick. Now what does that tell us about what we
>are saying today about... take your pick again. For instance,
>just today, Celtic influence on Italian vowels.

-- 
Miguel Carrasquer         ____________________  ~~~
Amsterdam                [                  ||]~  
mcv@inter.NL.net         ce .sig n'est pas une .cig 
