sum : verbal / pronominal feature differences earlier this month i posted the following query : = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = what languages ( if any ) do people know about , where there are distinctions carried in the verbal morphology which cannot be indicated in the pronominal system ? ( for example , if a language expressed gender differences in the verbs , but not in pronouns ) . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = the following people very kindly replied with various pieces of very useful information : antton elosegi aldasoro ( fvpelala @ sd . ehu . es ) ariel mira ( mariel @ ccsg . tau . ac . il ) " ellen l . contini - morava " ( elc9j @ faraday . clas . virginia . edu ) simon corston ( corston @ humanitas . ucsb . edu ) brian d joseph ( bjoseph @ magnus . acs . ohio-state . edu ) june wickboldt : jwickbol @ ucs . indiana . edu here are the replies : the two most promising examples of what i was asking about come from basque and hebrew , where the pronominal and verbal systems do not match for gender : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - antton elosegi aldasoro ( fvpelala @ sd . ehu . es ) in basque there is not gender at all in nouns or pronouns , but some verbal forms carry the distinction of the gender of the 2nd person nik ekarri diat nik ekarri dinat i ( erg ) give it to you-masc i ( erg ) give it to you-fem antton elosegi ( university of the basque country ) ariel mira ( mariel @ ccsg . tau . ac . il ) in my own hebrew " normal " verbal inflections ( past and future ) distinguish person gender and number in 2nd and 3rd persons , but only number in 1st person . so far so good , because so does the free pronominal system . however , our now present tense is morphologically a nominal form ( for eg . holexet = ' walk ( fem ) ' as well as ' walker ( fem ) ' . now , our nominal forms , having nothing to do with pronominal forms inflects for number and gender , but does not distinguish persons . the result is that now 1st person present inflection distinguishes between fem and masc though the independent pronoun does not . modern hebrew is losing some gender distinctions too ! 1 . future tense 3rd pers plural : fem form is hardly ever used . even the purist language academy has " abolished " the form . ( we do n't seem to ever have had it in past tense ) . 2 . in colloquial speech , the same is happening to 2nd person , no doubt because the 2nd and 3rd person plural fem forms are identical ( though not the masc ones they have converged with ) . 3 . this needs to be checked ! the free plural feminine pronoun , as well as past inflections of same seem to me to be shaking . but real data has to be recorded for this , so do n't make much of this . i wonder whether mixed forms are possible , namely , you-fem go + masc , etc . * and on a more theoretical note * : hopefully you will find very few examples for what you are looking , because i believe ( what others have been saying for about a hundred years ) that inflections tend to develop out of free pronouns . hence , the dependence between the meanings encoded , though there is no principled reason for the inflection to change later , i guess . it is really unlikely , though , because once the form is inflected , fused with the verb , chances are it won't develop its separate semantics . if you ' re interested in theories about the development of inflection out of pronouns , i have my own , which accounts for the well-known fact that inflections for 1st and 2nd person are much more prevalent than 3rd person . i claim this is so not because 3rd person is unmarked , but rather , since referents of 3rd person are usually much less accessible than referents of 1st and 2nd person ( the speaker and the addressee ) . minimal forms are reserved for more accessible referents ( in general ) , hence inflections are the natural development out of free pronouns for highly accessible antecedents . you can have a look at my book ' accessing np antecedents ' , routledge , 1990 , chapter 6 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the following two respondents quote cases where logophoric and obviative marking occur attached to the verb rather than to the pronoun to which they refer . to me , it seems that these particles are not inflections as such , though i am not sure exactly how i would classify them . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - june wickboldt : jwickbol @ ucs . indiana . edu some languages having logophoric reference mark the reference with verbal affixes , not pronouns or pronominals . two are newari , see karen ebert . 1986 . reported speech in some languages of nepal . in f . coulmas ( ed . ) direct and indirect speech , berlin : mouton de gruyter , and gokana , see hyman , larry m . and bernard comrie . 1981 . logophoric reference in gokana . journal of african languages and linguistics . 3 : 19-37 . brian d joseph ( bjoseph @ magnus . acs . ohio-state . edu ) the algonquian language cree , spoken in canada , has a category known in the literature as " obviative " , which provides a way of distinguishing between different third-persons in a discourse ( the first one mentioned is " proximate " , and the next one mentioned is " obviative " , so cree can distinguish unambiguously between " john met bill as he was walking down the street " where rhe " in english can refer to either john or bill - - in cree it would be unambiguously one or the other ) . for the most part , and this is where it is relevant to you , this marking shows up on the verb ( thus the verb form in the above sentence would be different if it was john walking or bill walking ) ; nouns can show obviative / proximate marking ( though one class , the so-called " inanimate " nouns do not ) , and there are proximate and obviative forms of demonstrative pronouns , but not of the personal pronouns . thus " wi : ya " is ' he / proximate ' as well as ' he / obviative ' . pronouns are not usually expressed in cree , but if you just look at the personal pronouns , then cree would be a language of the sort you were looking for . for that matter , these facts are similar in virtually all the algonquian languages , so it is n't just cree . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - finally , two respondents noted that independent pronouns are not necessarily marked for case in the same way as pronominal affixes . such phenomena do not seem rare to me ( e . g . arabic does the same ) . i am assuming then that such cases are not marked . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ellen l . contini - morava " ( elc9j @ faraday . clas . virginia . edu ) in swahili part of the verb morphology is subject and object prefixes , that signal info . about participant role with respect to the action of the verb . this distinction is not made among independent pronouns , which distinguish only person and number . but since the subject and object prefixes in swahili are often called " pronominal " , i do n't know if this counts as a distinction that can't be made by pronouns . simon corston ( corston @ humanitas . ucsb . edu ) in my ma , in press in the pacific linguistics series from anu , i discuss ' ergativity in roviana ' . roviana has special pronominal forms used for absolutive ( s ( 's ubject of intr ' ) or o ( ' object ' ) ) , and different forms for a ( 's ubject of tr ' ) . the pronouns make distinctions in person , number , and incl / ecl for 1pl . there are pronominal verbal affixes on the verb which are always only o . i . e . whereas the independent prons do n't distinguish s / o , the pronominal affixes do . somewhere around here i have a brief sketch of roviana which i have been sending to people . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i found everything very interesting , and am happy to receive any more info on my query above . thanks again to those who responded ! maik gibson university of reading