Re: Is it necessary to distinguish inclusiveness in possessive markers?

Quoting Trebor Jung <treborjung@...>:

> Merhaba!
>
> Andreas wrote:
>
> "Does that "he/she" cover also "it", or do you have something particularly
> evil brewing?"
>
> I think you'll be glad to hear that the pronominal system is the following,
> now:
> I
> we-excl.
> we-incl.
> you
> y'all (i.e. you-plural)
> he/she/it/they
> someone/some people (i.e. fourth person)
This does not agree with my understanding of the term "fourth person", near as
I can tell. But instead of digging ourselves down in definitions (admittedly,
one of my favourite passtimes), how 'bout an example or three? :)

> I think that a plural distinction is only really necessary, in this case, for
> the first and second persons. Easier to manage, I think.
Hm, spontaneously, I'd think that a sg~pl distinction is least called-for in
the 2nd person, but then I'm a Germanic.

Hm, looking at my langs, they've, pretty much, all got fairly sensible
pronominal systems (assuming mandatory gender indication in 1st pl can be
termed "fairly sensible"). I'll have to think up something truly wacked-out if
I even get started on that nanoling.

                                                         Andreas