I'm not sure the dual is useful, really.  What advantage is there in
indicating duality over plurality?

But then, I kind of reject the idea that language is "useful," or that
language change is driven by "usefulness."  It's mostly not; any use strikes
me as a spandrel.  A nice and important spandrel, but not the purpose of
language itself.

(What is the purpose of language?  I suspect, to draw a mate.)


On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Well, yes, but the dual is always very useful, and it drops alot. I
> think it might also just undergo a semantic shift, for example,
> Jorayn's quintuple pronouns developped because five is a special
> number in the culture, but now they no longer signify groups of five,
> but rather are unmarked for number. Instead they are used for very
> important people or in certain ceremonial contexts for an important
> group (the group is of five people though, traditionally)
>
> On 6/29/11, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Well, I'm normally skeptical to the point of fanaticism about claims of
> > "language reflecting culture," but if the speakers found the distinction
> > between oneself and one's group identity absolutely essential, I imagine
> > they might find a more frequent use for that pronoun.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Just wanted to say this is a pretty cool distinction, I imagine
> >> languages generally aknowledge it, but it's rare enough to probably
> >> not garner a pronoun in most languages. Even if it did I imagine it
> >> would disappear eventually, like how the Dual always seems to fade
> >> away.
> >>
> >> On 6/27/11, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> > Did I just invent a new first person plural pronoun?
> >> >
> >> > We've got:
> >> > Inclusive We == you and I are going to . . .
> >> > Exclusive We == he and I but not you are going to . . .
> >> >
> >> > Do we have an autoexclusive we?
> >> > The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are
> going
> >> to .
> >> > . .
> >> > So:  "We (the Oa) went to the moon, but not me personally"
> >> > "We (the team with which I identify) won the big game."
> >> >
> >> > I was thinking I might add this to the slowly sprawling chart of Oasa
> >> > pronouns.  Any Natlangs do this already?  And better?
> >> >
> >> > --Patrick
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
> to
> >> > window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur
> Rimbaud
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my mobile device
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
> > window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur Rimbaud
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>



-- 
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur Rimbaud