Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Pointless question, obvious answer
Pointless question.
Why isn't there a third or fourth type of article?
Latin and Teutonic languages have indefinite and definite articles, and use them all the time. Italian and Portuguese use the articles most intensely.
Most other languages get along fine without articles. Slavic originally had definite articles but mainly dropped them, except for Bulgarian and Macedonian where Latin influence kept the concept alive.
The indefinite article is just a degenerate form of the number one, and has no real connection to the definite.
The definite article arose from the demonstrative pronoun family.
Here's where the question pops up. Demonstrative or pointing pronouns have three types of pointing, in parallel with 1st, 2nd, 3rd person 'ordinary' pronouns.
Latin has ipse, hic, ille corresponding to me, you, and him. Ipse points inward to where I am, hic points outward to where you are, and ille points beyond you, to where he is.
In Latin-descended languages, ille became both the definite article and the third-person pronoun.
Why didn't ipse and hic also degenerate into adjective-like or enclitic forms?
It's hard to imagine how such forms would feel or function.
Trying a couple of examples:
Ipse hair needs a trim = Hair right here, on me, needs cutting.
Hic house needs painting = House familiar to you needs painting.
Aha! They perform pretty much the same function as possessives, which may explain why they weren't needed.
Ipse hair = My hair, Hic house = Your house.
There's a semantic distinction, but it's weak. Weak distinctions always fade out.
From another angle: Though ipse hair and hic house never came into use, they do show up as missing places in a table. Try applying the to both situations.
The hair needs a trim = NOT my hair, somebody else's hair.
The house needs painting = NOT your house, some other house.
Ille retains its over-yonder feel and doesn't work well in ipse or hic situations.
= = = = =
Later and MUCH simpler answer: We don't need ipse and hic forms as articles because we have this and that. This = ipse, that = hic, the = ille. We call this/that demonstrative pronouns instead of articles, but all three are strictly parallel.
This little exercise wasn't entirely pointless. It helped to display a normally hidden pattern in grammar, and helped to refine the semantics of a common word.
In Latin-descended languages, ille became both the definite article and the third-person pronoun.
Why didn't ipse and hic also degenerate into adjective-like or enclitic forms?
It's hard to imagine how such forms would feel or function.
Trying a couple of examples:
Ipse hair needs a trim = Hair right here, on me, needs cutting.
Hic house needs painting = House familiar to you needs painting.
Aha! They perform pretty much the same function as possessives, which may explain why they weren't needed.
Ipse hair = My hair, Hic house = Your house.
There's a semantic distinction, but it's weak. Weak distinctions always fade out.
From another angle: Though ipse hair and hic house never came into use, they do show up as missing places in a table. Try applying the to both situations.
The hair needs a trim = NOT my hair, somebody else's hair.
The house needs painting = NOT your house, some other house.
Ille retains its over-yonder feel and doesn't work well in ipse or hic situations.
= = = = =
Later and MUCH simpler answer: We don't need ipse and hic forms as articles because we have this and that. This = ipse, that = hic, the = ille. We call this/that demonstrative pronouns instead of articles, but all three are strictly parallel.
This little exercise wasn't entirely pointless. It helped to display a normally hidden pattern in grammar, and helped to refine the semantics of a common word.Labels: Answered better than asked, Language update
¶ 1:11 AM
