D:na or S:da

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

In recent weeks i have seen both used, for some reason I more often like to use D:na... so... which one?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

You use Doamna or D:na as you would use English Mrs. or Spanish Señora, and Siorida or S:da as you would use English Miss or Spanish Señorita.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Thank you very much!

[Flip Molinar]

Is there a miz form? I mean a form that neglects a woman's marital or social status?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I use S:da in such a manner, Molinar, so I guess by common usage, yes.

[Flip Molinar]

I do the same. Thank you S:reu Davis.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

philmungai said:

Is there a miz form? I mean a form that neglects a woman's marital or social status?

As is typical for Romance languages, there is no third form like in English. So you have to choose one of the two that traditionally connote a marital status. Just like how in Spanish you have to choose Señora or Señorita, in French you have to choose Madame or Mademoiselle, and in German you have to choose Frau or Fräulein. Talossan can evolve towards using one or the other as the "default," like S:reu Davis suggests. I believe in most other languages, the trend is to use the D:na-equivalent for any adult female, unless you're sure the S:da-equivalent is appropriate.

[Flip Molinar]

Thanks Cresti.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I should add that while there is no form that is neutral as to a woman's marital status, that is technically true for men as well. Segnor is supposed to refer to a married gentleman, while an unmarried gentleman rates sior (compare to siorida). I'm not sure whether both are abbreviated S:reu -- maybe this explains the S:reu/S:r distinction that was discussed in the very first (I think) thread in this forum.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

I did not know about Sior! Maybe we should start calling people S:r who are unmarried and S:reu for those who are

[EM Vürinalt]

*gasp*

Something Dreu didn't creepishly stalkerishly know about El Glhetg!

No...I actually read the entire 1996 grammer last weekend...

I think we should write a new one.

lol

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Quiet you!

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

mbenzschawel said:

I think we should write a new one.

We certainly should. We need to gather all the proposals that have been suggested over the past several months, and try to figure out which ones are really critical to resolve prior to putting out the next edition of the grammar. Then get those issues hammered out and get a really good grammar put together before we get too far into further reforms.

[EM Vürinalt]

siervicul said:

We certainly should. We need to gather all the proposals that have been suggested over the past several months, and try to figure out which ones are really critical to resolve prior to putting out the next edition of the grammar. Then get those issues hammered out and get a really good grammar put together before we get too far into further reforms.

Agreed. It is quite an undertaking. I think that we should try to make this as complete as possible to last at least 2 or 3 years. Considering the increased activity and interest in El Glheþ, I believe it is unlikely to see a grammer such as the 1996 one stand, nearly uncontested, for so long, since the language is fast developing.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Okay Vüri... if you spell grammar with an "e" one more time. I will personally kill you.

Sorry guys... I know it's off topic. it just had to be said.