In synchronic as well as diachronic treatments of languages, the pronominal system is much more basic and primary than pronominal agreement in the finite verbs and predicative nouns. The choice of pronominal suffixes in finite verbs proceeds from the choice of the subject noun phrase of a sentence (which is replaceable by a pronoun), and not vice versa. Secondly, the pronominal (gender-number-person) contrasts found in finite verbs or predicative nouns are either of the same number or fewer than pronouns that govern them as subjects of sentences and not vice versa. … Since “agreement” between the subject and the verb in gender, number, and person is a redundant system, we notice the process of simplification affecting the verb system first. Consequently, there is no one-to-one relationship between the number of pronouns and their corresponding reference in the finite verbs.
Standardized
IF there are gender-number-person contrasts on the predicate agreeing in these categories with the subject, THEN there are the same contrasts on subject pronouns.
1. Actually, Krishnamurti’s claim is weaker: THEN the contrasts on subject pronouns are not fewer.They might conceivably be different contrasts, like e.g. pronouns distinguishing Masc, Fem, Neut and agreement targets Human, Anim, Inanim.2. Explicitly or implicitly, this is a common assumption, supposedly holding for agreement in general.3. Krishnamurti’s explanation is diachronic: There are fewer distinctions on agreement targets because it is there that they are lost first.
1. Actually, Krishnamurti’s claim is weaker: THEN the contrasts on subject pronouns are not fewer.They might conceivably be different contrasts, like e.g. pronouns distinguishing Masc, Fem, Neut and agreement targets Human, Anim, Inanim.2. Explicitly or implicitly, this is a common assumption, supposedly holding for agreement in general.3. Krishnamurti’s explanation is diachronic: There are fewer distinctions on agreement targets because it is there that they are lost first.