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

Peter Bleackley scripsit:

> I once came up with the following idea for a pronoun system
>
> singular        plural
> 1st             1st+2nd 1st+3rd 1st+2nd+3rd
> 2nd             2nd     2nd+3rd
> 3rd             3rd
Lojban doesn't distinguish number (except by using numbers), so its
personal pronoun system (which covers only 1p and 2p) looks like this
(throughout this posting, "(an)other(s)" means those who are not speakers
or listeners):

mi      speaker(s)
du      listener(s)
mi'o    speaker(s) and listener(s)
mi'a    speaker(s) and other(s)
do'o    listener(s) and other(s)
ma'a    speaker(s) and listener(s) and other(s)

:z

When can the speaker be plural?  Well, when people are speaking in unison;
but more realistically, when one person is the spokesman for a group,
as when the foreman of a jury says "We the jury find the defendant
(not) guilty" -- this would be "mi" in Lojban.

Lojban has a whole raft of 3p pronouns, none of which are marked for number.

I also like this system (which is a natlang one, but I forget the
relevant natlang), for people who like duals:

                singular        dual                    plural
1p              I               I and another           I and others
2p              thou            thou and another        thou and others
1p+2p           ------          I and thou              I and thou and others
neither         another         two others              others

--
A witness cannot give evidence of his           John Cowan
age unless he can remember being born.          jcowan@reutershealth.com
  --Judge Blagden                               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Reply