🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Z6U06ED@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> knappen@obelix.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE writes:
>Date: Wed, 01 Jan 92 12:10:14 PST
>From: paul hopkins <PASHE@UVVM.UVic.CA>

>[...] the table of corelatives
>(kio, tio, cxio, kie, tie, cxie, ... ) seems a regular pattern, but only
>when it is presented to us as a whole pattern.

Yet many languages (such as Hindi, or the Polynesian family) come very
close to having very similar tables of almost the same regularity.

>Children learning Eo as a first language may not see it this way, but
>rather as a class of primitives, like cxi, nun, almenaux....

I'm not sure I understand this.  What do "nun" and "almenau" have to
do with the table of correlatives?  Actually, the very existence of
"nun" goes against the idea of a regular table of correlatives.

>As evidence of this i cite an observation i made
>a few years ago listening to a pair of children who had learned Eo as their
>first language. Perhaps influenced by English, their second language (or
>perhaps not, who knows?), they felt a need for a single word equivalent to
>English 'this' (in Esperanto: 'tio cxi'/'tion cxi', 'tiu cxi'/'tiun cxi',
>so they created the word 'toncxi'.

They must have been influenced by English, otherwise I'm at a loss for
an explanation of why French kids don't feel a need for a single word
substitute for "celui-ci".  On the other hand, it is interesting that
they disregarded the distinction between "tiu-chi" and "tiun-chi",
"tio-chi" and "tion-chi".

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK