Print

Print


On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:39:48 +1100, Brian Weekes <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >I am just wondering if anyone has experimented at all with using
> >exclusive/inclusive forms within the second person.
> >
> >From what I read there seems to be some disagreement in the academic
> >community over the possibility of second degree clusivity being
> functional.
>
> So it seems!
>   http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/55/59/Simon-2005-Only-
> You-Clusivity.pdf
>
> 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?  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.
>
> But Simon does make one very good point, or rather, quote one very good
> point made by Plank.  Namely, the mapping between _person_, the grammatical
> category, and _speech act role deixis_, i.e. the real-world facts about
> referents and their participation in the conversation, is not god-given.
> Traditional IE-motivated grammatical description establishes the categories
>   first person: includes the speaker
>   second person: includes a listener but not the speaker
>   third person: includes neither speaker nor any listener.
> For Sanuma, and Ojibwe agreement prefixes and various other languages
> beside, one wants a different mapping
>   (person A): includes a listener
>   (person B): includes the speaker but not any listener
>   third person: includes neither speaker nor any listener.
> To discourage preconceptions, the first two of these persons would perhaps
> be best served by entirely different names.  I don't know what good names
> would be, though.  (Simon suggests the strategy of calling person A "first
> person" -- 'cause it's the one whose conditions you check first, right --
> and person B "second person" similarly, but to me that's completely out of
> the question in its perversity, just as bad an idea as a romanisation with
> /p/ spelled ‹t› and /t/ spelled ‹p›.)
>

What would you call that? "Speaker-prominent" vs. "audience-prominent"
person systems?

I wonder if there are any languages that use both under different
circumstances? That would be pretty cruel (he said ominously).