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).