<p>Sure. And like always, real languages got there first.</p>

<p>In Quechua, for instance, fist person singular ("I/me") is <em>Ñuqa</em>. 1st person plural inclusive (we, all of us) is <em>Ñuqanchik</em>, and exclusive (us, but not you) is <em>Ñuqayku</em>.</p>

<p>Second person singular is <em>Qam</em>, plural <em>Qamkuna</em>. Third person singular is <em>Pay</em>, third person plural <em>Paykuna</em>. <em>-kuna</em> is simply the Quechuan plural suffix. "House" is <em>wasi</em>, "houses" <em>wasikuna</em>. </p>

<p>"You, the person I'm talking to" <em>Qam</em>, "You, the people I'm talking to" <em>Qamkuna</em>.</p>

<p>It's quite common in many languages that "I" and "you" are distinct; after all, I'm usually the most most important person in the universe, and you just live there. Third person pronouns seem to often be derived from pointing words: "that thing over there" becomes "that person over there".</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-18T04:05:46.357Z
2019-04-18T04:05:46.357Z
Keith Morrison
<p>It looks to me that I, you, and he/she are typically not derived from one another.  So Zha "I" might typically be quite different from the word for "You". But beyond that, inflecting these base pronouns is certainly fair game.</p>

<p>English I and you, for example, are unique as far back as we can go (Proto Indo European).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-02T22:45:45.703Z
2019-05-02T22:45:45.703Z
rje
<p>If I said "I" was "Zha" would it be plausible to say "you" is "Zho" and from there naturally begin forming grammatical gender, or would that be too early in the language to add complexities? Also, could the word "we" not be a root word but instead be derived from "I" (Zha->Zhasa)?</p>

<conlang-creation><grammar><gender>
Can Root Words Be Derived From Other Root Words
# Can Root Words Be Derived From Other Root Words

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-17)

If I said "I" was "Zha" would it be plausible to say "you" is "Zho" and from there naturally begin forming grammatical gender, or would that be too early in the language to add complexities? Also, could the word "we" not be a root word but instead be derived from "I" (Zha->Zhasa)?

**Tags:** conlang-creation, grammar, gender


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-04-18. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Sure. And like always, real languages got there first.

In Quechua, for instance, fist person singular ("I/me") is *Ñuqa*. 1st person plural inclusive (we, all of us) is *Ñuqanchik*, and exclusive (us, but not you) is *Ñuqayku*.

Second person singular is *Qam*, plural *Qamkuna*. Third person singular is *Pay*, third person plural *Paykuna*. *-kuna* is simply the Quechuan plural suffix. "House" is *wasi*, "houses" *wasikuna*.

"You, the person I'm talking to" *Qam*, "You, the people I'm talking to" *Qamkuna*.

It's quite common in many languages that "I" and "you" are distinct; after all, I'm usually the most most important person in the universe, and you just live there. Third person pronouns seem to often be derived from pointing words: "that thing over there" becomes "that person over there".


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-02. Score: 0

It looks to me that I, you, and he/she are typically not derived from one another. So Zha "I" might typically be quite different from the word for "You". But beyond that, inflecting these base pronouns is certainly fair game.

English I and you, for example, are unique as far back as we can go (Proto Indo European).


---

