Print

Print


Dennis Paul Himes wrote:
>
> Roger Mills:
> > I'm having trouble conceiving a situation where your "exclusive" (I/we 
> > and
> > others, and you) would be used. Wouldn't this just be a general 
> > "plural"?
> > Just "we all". Could you give an example?
>
>     "Bob" is the first person exclusive plural nominative pronoun
> (pronounced /bob/), and "bee" the first person inclusive nominative plural
> (/be/).  If Tifa was talking, then he'd use the following:
>
> talking to  talking about       old system  new system
> Na          Tifa and Na         bee         bee
> Na          Tifa, Na, and EExa  bee         bob
> Na and EExa Tifa, Na, and EExa  bee         bee
> Uza         Tifa, Na, and EExa  bob         bob

OK. The first three would be Indonesian kita (incl.) since the hearer Na is 
involved in all cases. Only the last would be kami (excl.) since Uza is not 
part of the group discussed. (As in your old system. Using Indo. just helps 
me relate it to a familiar natlang.)

#2, I suppose, might be used where EExa is not present, but it's understood 
he/she is/was/will be involved. In 3, or course, all the people spoken about 
are present.

This would be correct too, I assume-- (Tifa talking)-- 
talking to  talking about       old system  new system
Uza          Tifa and Na         (bob?)        bob

And what would happen if Tifa is talking to Na and Uza about something Tifa, 
Na and EExa (but not Uza) did???  Oh my. (I think Indo. would use excl. 
kami.)

>
>     The change I'm making is in the second case, where first, second, and
> third are all combined.  This is now what I've been calling "exclusive", 
> but
> that term doesn't seem right any more, since no one's excluded in this 
> case.
>
I see your point, and perhaps for cultural reasons the language might want 
to distinguish 1 and 3 from 2 and 4; but you're right about "exclusive" 
being the wrong term for #2, which seems to involve _including absent 
others_. Technically it seems to be "inclusive-exclusive" but of course that 
won't do :-))

Since 1,3 are genuinely inclusive, and 4 is genuinely exclusive, a possible 
name for 2 might be "absentive"; then the rule would be "Use [bob] whenever 
(1) the hearer is not part of the group spoken about (true exclusive) or (2) 
whenever the group spoken about includes hearer and absent others."