Print

Print


I just combined classes of first, second, and third persons. So
we-inclusive would be 'I-you-she went to the store' and we-exclusive
would be just 'I-she' or 'I-you'.

On 1/15/07, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dennis Paul Himes wrote:
> >     Seezzitonian now has both inclusive and exclusive first person.  In
> > the
> > plural they've been distinguished by whether or not the second person is
> > included.  In the singular the exclusive is usually used, the inclusive
> > reserved for certain rhetorical situations (stage soliloquies, talking to
> > oneself, certain oaths).
>
> Nice.
>
>  I've decided to change the distinction in the
> > plural to be keyed off of whether or not a third person is included.  So
> > first person inclusive plural would mean the speaker and listener(s) and
> > no
> > one else, while first person exclusive plural would mean the speaker, at
> > least one person neither the speaker or a listener, and possibly also the
> > listener(s).
>
> Inclusive is clear: I/we and you (sg.or pl.) but no others. (This would be
> Indonesian kita). This might develop from an original dual "you and I".
>
> Also clear, the Indo. exclusive kami (I/we and others, but not you sg/pl).
> Perhaps originally < he/they and I.
>
> 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?
>