On 17 November 2016 at 00:02, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You-Clusivity.pdf
Link seems to be not working, and google finds no pdf. (I went and started
reading it on google books and hit the point where pages get gratuitously
withheld so am in that state of annoyance that that experience habitually
induces.) Are you able to post a link to a copy?

> Simon's ultimate conclusion in that article is that though all the
> languages generally used as examples of second-person clusivity are
> actually examples not of that but instead of other phenomena, Bavarian *is*
> in fact a real example.  It may be that he's right about Bavarian, but he
> really pulls a remarkable volte-face to make that claim which leaves me
> suspicious of the whole endeavour.  In one breath he castigates Borgman
> whose description of Sanuma "reveals that he remains firmly in the
> terminological web of grammaticographical tradition:"
> | > First person plural inclusive and second person plural have the same
> | > pronoun and only context determines which referent is intended.
> | (Borgmann 1990: 149)
> Clearly, he says, there's in fact only one pronoun here with one semantic
> value, and that is 'group including the addressee' (the speaker being
> irrelevant).  But in the next breath he has the cheek to say of Bavarian
> | Second, there is a stunning homonymy between the second person singular
> | honorative and the second person plural inclusive; and this holds true
> for
> | all the other case forms of the two pronouns and the correlated verb
> forms
> | not listed here, too.
> Complete homonymy in all forms!!  What happened to not multiplying
> grammatical entities beyond necessity?

But what would be the meaning of a single unified entity? (I ask without
having read most of the paper.) If the meanings aren't unifiable, then it
would look as though there are two entities, but there'd also need to be
some mechanism to account for the homonymy in all forms, the most obvious
being a supercategory specifying all the forms but not the meanings and two
subcategories specifying the different meanings but not the forms. (If the
description "polysemy" had been used instead of "complete homonymy in all
forms", it wouldn't sound so bad, but the homonymy--polysemy distinction is
essentially vacuous unless founded on a precise theoretical model of
grammatical structure.)

> Anyway, it doesn't help my suspicions that Simon probably knows Bavarian
> through lived experience and the other languages he cites through reading
> grammars.  My interpretation of this is that probably so-called second
> person clusivity is something which many languages are indeed sensitive to
> in one way or another, but the sensitivity is usually subtle and grammar
> descriptions can very easily miss it slash not make a convincing case for
> it.

That sounds pretty likely.