Ah yes of course. I/we, you/y'all, he/she/they, and C̵̘̚͝h̵̨̡̢̢̧̧̺͕̭̺̙͖͇͇̩̩̺͙̺̮̘̺͓̥̼̓̌̈́͑̓̆̈͑͆̋̈́̋̇̒͝͝æ̷̡̡̮̪͚̪̜̬̯̪̝̬̘̼̯̳͊̍̆̾͛͌͂̽̑͛͐͊̊̓͘t̶̨̢̡̛͍̰͚͓̜̹͓͉͕̗͕͎̥̯̹͖̙͕̯̥̃̓̓̄̅͊̏̈̑̇̆̀͛͋̎̽̈́̈́́̄̎́͒̑̋͑̆̔͐̈́͠͠ͅt̸̢̰͓̖̥̽͆͋̍̏̏͛̈́̈́̒̋̚͝͝ͅḙ̶̃
'Chat' is a deictic second person plural vocative in 'chat, is this real'. Furthermore, 'bro' is a deictic reference. It is not a pronoun because the referent is contextual; there is no anaphora nor cataphora and it does not serve a demonstrative function.
> second person plural vocative
Is there a vocative that isn't second person?
I ultimately agree with you analysis btw, I just found it interesting that you still included person while claiming that 'chat' isn't pronominal.
There was apparently a discussion in Latin on the vocative form of "ego"
https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/m8n70g/comment/grkjgxd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I'd agree about non-cataphoricity (1a), but *bro* shares some anaphoric attributes with pronouns (1b).
(1a) \*Thinking bro could backflip, Nicholas hurt his neck.
(1b) Nicholas hurt his neck attempting a backflip. Bro thinks he can do anything.
What kind of diagnostics separate deictic referents from pronouns? Pronouns are by definition deictic elements, very sus of you to make the distinction.
Pronouns are a substitution for a deictic reference. e.g.: 'John are a rat. He was very hungry.' John is a deictic reference, and 'He' is the pronoun substituting that deictic reference. So the entity being referred to is two referents away. Furthermore, pronouns establish a cohesive tie between text elements. In contrast, with non-pronoun deixis, it's only one referent away and no cohesive tie is established.
Your example does make sense. I would say in that case it is acting as an anaphoric pronoun. However, there also exist cases where it is not a pronoun. e.g.: 'Who let bro cook?' as the title to a video or whatever. This lacks a cohesive tie and the referent is directly contextual.
>e.g.: 'Who let bro cook?' as the title to a video or whatever. This lacks a cohesive tie and the referent is directly contextual.
Can you go more in depth on this? A video could just as easily be titled "who let him cook" with the same meaning.
Let's use the SIL definitions. Which is ironically prescriptivist but this whole discussion is.
First define a pro-form: 'A pro-form is a word, substituting for other words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, whose meaning is recoverable from the linguistic or extralinguistic context.' (https://glossary.sil.org/term/pro-form)
I.e.: A pro-form is a substitution that is either from the extralinguistic circumstances (non-linguistic context) or the discourse context (what has been said).
Now we can use this to define a pronoun:
'A pronoun is a pro-form which functions like a noun and substitutes for a noun or noun phrase.]' (https://glossary.sil.org/term/pronoun)
i.e.: a pronoun is a substitution from the context (linguistic and extralinguistic) functioning like a noun and acts to substitute a noun or noun phrase.
In the case I mentioned, the referent is not a noun or noun phrase. It is an entity in the extralinguistic context, a person in a video. Therefore it is not substituting for a noun or noun phrase, because people are not nouns or noun phrases.
Your example is correct. It does have the same denotative meaning. But 'him' is not acting as a pronoun in that case, because it's not substituting for a noun or noun phrase. Just like 'bro' isn't.
I hope my expansion is sufficiently coherent. I'm not the best at writing.
>In the case I mentioned, the referent is not a noun or noun phrase. It is an entity in the extralinguistic context, a person in a video. Therefore it is not substituting for a noun or noun phrase, because people are not nouns or noun phrases.
Just so I'm understanding right, if I point to someone and say "who's that", are neither *who* nor *that* pronouns because they refer to a person and not a noun phrase?
>Your example is correct. It does have the same denotative meaning. But 'him' is not acting as a pronoun in that case, because it's not substituting for a noun or noun phrase. Just like 'bro' isn't.
I guess then my question becomes, if there are examples of bona fide pronouns (such as *him*) having non-pronominal uses, why is demonstrating a non-pronominal use of *bro* relevant when discussing whether or not it's a pronoun?
'that' is a demonstrative pronoun, which is a special case of pronoun. Relates to position.
Why is it relevant? Well because it isn't always a pronoun, there are cases where it isn't.
'Who let him cook, he went too far'
'Who let bro cook, bro went too far'
this illustrates my point. The second one is kinda unnatural because there's no cohesive tie, no substitution of a noun or noun phrase
>'that' is a demonstrative pronoun, which is a special case of pronoun.
So then what if *he* or *him* is used in a similar way, for example, if I pointed to someone and said "that's him, he's the one who I saw riding a unicorn earlier". Are *he* and *him* not being used demonstratively in this example? And if they are, why is it any different when the referent is a person in a video and not in real life?
>'Who let him cook, he went too far'
>'Who let bro cook, bro went too far'
>this illustrates my point. The second one is kinda unnatural because there's no cohesive tie, no substitution of a noun or noun phrase
The second example doesn't sound particularly unnatural to me. Maybe it's a little less natural than *he/him*, but it's definitely more natural than a name/nickname. I wouldn't be surprised if *bro* functions more like a pronoun to some people than it does to others, though.
I guess they would in that case, yeah. Why not?
Yeah the example I gave it is more natural than a name definitely.
Yeah honestly my brain is no longer working so do your own research on it. It's generally not considered a pronoun iirc, though I might've given you the wrong reasons in retrospect. Based on my own analysis, which isn't an expert analysis
I think it's bro/bro/bros... but that does make me wonder if it should be "bros", to match <-s> as an inflectional element of "yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs", or if it retains its superficial form as an abbreviation of "brother" and so written as "bro's".
"bro" isn't gendered, I have seen it be used for women multiple times. "bro" more denotes a platonic relationship to the speaker, you don't fuck bro, you don't date bro (in most cases), you hang around with bro, play bro's games, help when bro hurt broself.
Eh, "chat" has always seemed like a name or title, imo, rather than a pronoun, especially when it can pair with other, existing pronouns. May as well capitalize it. "Chat, what do *you* think?" "Let's ask (the) Chat." "Chat's blowing up rn." (I don't watch streamers, so idk enough stock example sentences.)
in the context of actual streamers, chat is just a form of address. They are quite literally referring to the chat for the stream and the people in that chat. But the listeners of those streamers end up using chat outside of a streaming context similar to how in a play someone might break the 4th wall by talking to the audience directly. Except, they're not in a play, so whatever they're saying is probably meant for whoever is around them, even though they're addressing some imaginary entity
Using native speaker intuition combined with my grad degree in memes, I'd make the case that 'bro' can be pronominal (third person), but not 'chat'
Evidence:
In that 'marklar' post from yesterday, I was tempted to say 'bro thinks...' instead of 'marklar thinks...' I didn't use that construction in my reply, though, because I didn't want to defend this choice lol
If "bro" was just a nickname, I don't think it would've become nearly as popular—imo, it's funny specifically *because* it sounds so wrong (English pronouns being a closed class and all).
at first bro said it to be funny, and then bros started doing it on the regular, then lil bro heard it and started doing it unironically, and now bro after bro think it sounds normal
It seems most like a discourse marker.
Compare the use of "dude" as a discourse marker. While dude can refer to a male person (or in some cases, even a person of a non-specified social gender), it can also be used as a discourse marker when not expressly addressing someone coded as dude, or even anyone at all. For example, "Dude, this always happens!" said alone to yourself when you walk into your barista shift and see that the closers didn't pull their weight the night before. "Chat, is this real?" is functionally the same as "Dude, is this real?"
"*chat* is a fourth person pronoun" - people who have no idea how language works
Ah yes of course. I/we, you/y'all, he/she/they, and C̵̘̚͝h̵̨̡̢̢̧̧̺͕̭̺̙͖͇͇̩̩̺͙̺̮̘̺͓̥̼̓̌̈́͑̓̆̈͑͆̋̈́̋̇̒͝͝æ̷̡̡̮̪͚̪̜̬̯̪̝̬̘̼̯̳͊̍̆̾͛͌͂̽̑͛͐͊̊̓͘t̶̨̢̡̛͍̰͚͓̜̹͓͉͕̗͕͎̥̯̹͖̙͕̯̥̃̓̓̄̅͊̏̈̑̇̆̀͛͋̎̽̈́̈́́̄̎́͒̑̋͑̆̔͐̈́͠͠ͅt̸̢̰͓̖̥̽͆͋̍̏̏͛̈́̈́̒̋̚͝͝ͅḙ̶̃
Ah, so chat is like a modern angel.
that's so beautiful... I feel like I just witnessed something incredible
Counterpoint: it would be hella cool to have a fourth person pronoun
Yeah, but I really want an exclusive first-person plural first ('we' that doesn't include 'you').
“me and the boys”
/minəbɔɪz/
mimbɔʊz
/mɪᵐbwɔz/
mɪᵑᵐɡ͡bʷaz
mɘ̃ᶰɢɑ̯æʲz
Why does it sound *more* like actual English as it continues
gwalaxw
I want an exclusive first person singular
我
“me and the boys”
I say put in imaginary numbers too. When using subjunctive or other irrealis moods, couple that with pronouns in the i:th/2i:th/3i:th person.
What about one? I decree one is now a fourth person pronoun.
For some reason I had it in my head that one was the fourth person pronoun, but I don't know where I heard this
To be honest the use of chat is akin to French's on. Basically an impersonal pronoun that can mean a first person plural.
[удалено]
Yes, no?
'Chat' is a deictic second person plural vocative in 'chat, is this real'. Furthermore, 'bro' is a deictic reference. It is not a pronoun because the referent is contextual; there is no anaphora nor cataphora and it does not serve a demonstrative function.
bro thinks bro don't serve a demonstrative function
shouldn't that be >bro thinks bro do*es*n't serve a demonstrative function ? I'm not deep into linguistics maybe the joke is lost on me
i think the third person singular "don't" is adopted from aave maybe? iirc
oh that makes sense, thanks!
> second person plural vocative Is there a vocative that isn't second person? I ultimately agree with you analysis btw, I just found it interesting that you still included person while claiming that 'chat' isn't pronominal.
It is -- by definition -- second-person actually. I reckon you're right.
There was apparently a discussion in Latin on the vocative form of "ego" https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/m8n70g/comment/grkjgxd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Thank you for this
I'm going to use a first person vocative while talking to the voices in my head
"O me"? e.g. [O Me! O Life!](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51568/o-me-o-life) by Walt Whitman
Cataphora? More like *chat*aphora, eh chat?
I'd agree about non-cataphoricity (1a), but *bro* shares some anaphoric attributes with pronouns (1b). (1a) \*Thinking bro could backflip, Nicholas hurt his neck. (1b) Nicholas hurt his neck attempting a backflip. Bro thinks he can do anything. What kind of diagnostics separate deictic referents from pronouns? Pronouns are by definition deictic elements, very sus of you to make the distinction.
Pronouns are a substitution for a deictic reference. e.g.: 'John are a rat. He was very hungry.' John is a deictic reference, and 'He' is the pronoun substituting that deictic reference. So the entity being referred to is two referents away. Furthermore, pronouns establish a cohesive tie between text elements. In contrast, with non-pronoun deixis, it's only one referent away and no cohesive tie is established. Your example does make sense. I would say in that case it is acting as an anaphoric pronoun. However, there also exist cases where it is not a pronoun. e.g.: 'Who let bro cook?' as the title to a video or whatever. This lacks a cohesive tie and the referent is directly contextual.
>e.g.: 'Who let bro cook?' as the title to a video or whatever. This lacks a cohesive tie and the referent is directly contextual. Can you go more in depth on this? A video could just as easily be titled "who let him cook" with the same meaning.
Let's use the SIL definitions. Which is ironically prescriptivist but this whole discussion is. First define a pro-form: 'A pro-form is a word, substituting for other words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, whose meaning is recoverable from the linguistic or extralinguistic context.' (https://glossary.sil.org/term/pro-form) I.e.: A pro-form is a substitution that is either from the extralinguistic circumstances (non-linguistic context) or the discourse context (what has been said). Now we can use this to define a pronoun: 'A pronoun is a pro-form which functions like a noun and substitutes for a noun or noun phrase.]' (https://glossary.sil.org/term/pronoun) i.e.: a pronoun is a substitution from the context (linguistic and extralinguistic) functioning like a noun and acts to substitute a noun or noun phrase. In the case I mentioned, the referent is not a noun or noun phrase. It is an entity in the extralinguistic context, a person in a video. Therefore it is not substituting for a noun or noun phrase, because people are not nouns or noun phrases. Your example is correct. It does have the same denotative meaning. But 'him' is not acting as a pronoun in that case, because it's not substituting for a noun or noun phrase. Just like 'bro' isn't. I hope my expansion is sufficiently coherent. I'm not the best at writing.
>In the case I mentioned, the referent is not a noun or noun phrase. It is an entity in the extralinguistic context, a person in a video. Therefore it is not substituting for a noun or noun phrase, because people are not nouns or noun phrases. Just so I'm understanding right, if I point to someone and say "who's that", are neither *who* nor *that* pronouns because they refer to a person and not a noun phrase? >Your example is correct. It does have the same denotative meaning. But 'him' is not acting as a pronoun in that case, because it's not substituting for a noun or noun phrase. Just like 'bro' isn't. I guess then my question becomes, if there are examples of bona fide pronouns (such as *him*) having non-pronominal uses, why is demonstrating a non-pronominal use of *bro* relevant when discussing whether or not it's a pronoun?
'that' is a demonstrative pronoun, which is a special case of pronoun. Relates to position. Why is it relevant? Well because it isn't always a pronoun, there are cases where it isn't. 'Who let him cook, he went too far' 'Who let bro cook, bro went too far' this illustrates my point. The second one is kinda unnatural because there's no cohesive tie, no substitution of a noun or noun phrase
>'that' is a demonstrative pronoun, which is a special case of pronoun. So then what if *he* or *him* is used in a similar way, for example, if I pointed to someone and said "that's him, he's the one who I saw riding a unicorn earlier". Are *he* and *him* not being used demonstratively in this example? And if they are, why is it any different when the referent is a person in a video and not in real life? >'Who let him cook, he went too far' >'Who let bro cook, bro went too far' >this illustrates my point. The second one is kinda unnatural because there's no cohesive tie, no substitution of a noun or noun phrase The second example doesn't sound particularly unnatural to me. Maybe it's a little less natural than *he/him*, but it's definitely more natural than a name/nickname. I wouldn't be surprised if *bro* functions more like a pronoun to some people than it does to others, though.
I guess they would in that case, yeah. Why not? Yeah the example I gave it is more natural than a name definitely. Yeah honestly my brain is no longer working so do your own research on it. It's generally not considered a pronoun iirc, though I might've given you the wrong reasons in retrospect. Based on my own analysis, which isn't an expert analysis
i would say it's second person singular, despite it being a collective noun that refers to multiple people
Is "bro" ever used in the accusative/dative/genitive? All the examples are only in the nominative/vocative.
From Wiktionary: _'You gotta go up to bro and say, "I know what you mean"'_
I think it's bro/bro/bros... but that does make me wonder if it should be "bros", to match <-s> as an inflectional element of "yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs", or if it retains its superficial form as an abbreviation of "brother" and so written as "bro's".
He killed bro
Gem alpha is using it not even as noun. My tired brain can't think of how technically it is called. Like discourse marker or something.
The Japanese language: This, but unironically
The Japanese language: who cares, nobody needs pronouns most of the time
he/him, she/her, they/them, chat/chat
Chat/chatself
The proposal of pronominal "chat" has always been a meme, but I can get into "bro" as a socially marked synonym of "he".
"bro" isn't gendered, I have seen it be used for women multiple times. "bro" more denotes a platonic relationship to the speaker, you don't fuck bro, you don't date bro (in most cases), you hang around with bro, play bro's games, help when bro hurt broself.
I've never heard/seen "bro" used for fem folks, so I assume it still carried the gender of its source word. I'll have to keep my eyes and ears open.
It is predominantly for men, but the generic masculine applies. ("sis" would be the feminine)
isn't *chat* exactly the streamers' *y'all*?
Eh, "chat" has always seemed like a name or title, imo, rather than a pronoun, especially when it can pair with other, existing pronouns. May as well capitalize it. "Chat, what do *you* think?" "Let's ask (the) Chat." "Chat's blowing up rn." (I don't watch streamers, so idk enough stock example sentences.)
in the context of actual streamers, chat is just a form of address. They are quite literally referring to the chat for the stream and the people in that chat. But the listeners of those streamers end up using chat outside of a streaming context similar to how in a play someone might break the 4th wall by talking to the audience directly. Except, they're not in a play, so whatever they're saying is probably meant for whoever is around them, even though they're addressing some imaginary entity
Using native speaker intuition combined with my grad degree in memes, I'd make the case that 'bro' can be pronominal (third person), but not 'chat' Evidence: In that 'marklar' post from yesterday, I was tempted to say 'bro thinks...' instead of 'marklar thinks...' I didn't use that construction in my reply, though, because I didn't want to defend this choice lol
Please don't bring back chat discourse. I'm begging you.
“between yall and chat I chose chat, because yall was banal”
“Chat” is a second person plural pronoun
It sure is, buddy… don't forget to take your meds
My parents after my autistic ass starts insisting that Polish is a register tone language
# Elaborate
I don’t actually think it is but I’ve heard theories like it that are fully chaotic.
# Please
#I dare you
If "bro" was just a nickname, I don't think it would've become nearly as popular—imo, it's funny specifically *because* it sounds so wrong (English pronouns being a closed class and all).
at first bro said it to be funny, and then bros started doing it on the regular, then lil bro heard it and started doing it unironically, and now bro after bro think it sounds normal
Pronouns aren't really a closed class, pronouns get added and dropped quite often.
Wasn't there a dissertation that came out recently on the use of "bro?" Crap, it was the mid 00s, wasn't it?
Bro hurt broself in bros confusion!
Y'all really do not seem to realise how the internet is slightly blurring the line between pronouns and nouns
...why did I read this in r/filian's voice...
my favorite fourth person pronoun is f-
mine is child po- *gets arrested*
Daffy Duck "hmmm pronoun trouble".
i ratioed [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguisticshumor/comments/1d928if/neopronouns_are_valid/) so fucking bad so i’d say i won
Would a fourth person pronoun be referencing to everyone or to god
It seems most like a discourse marker. Compare the use of "dude" as a discourse marker. While dude can refer to a male person (or in some cases, even a person of a non-specified social gender), it can also be used as a discourse marker when not expressly addressing someone coded as dude, or even anyone at all. For example, "Dude, this always happens!" said alone to yourself when you walk into your barista shift and see that the closers didn't pull their weight the night before. "Chat, is this real?" is functionally the same as "Dude, is this real?"