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

Joe wrote:

> Which feels most right to you?  Some people like rediculously ambiguous
> langs, some people like rediculously precise ones.  Do you prefer a
> language to have more flexibility, or more accuracy?
My conlang has 5 ways to say "we"... I couldn't live without one of them!

çkarh [Ckax:] = you and I (dual)
kairh [kaix:] = we (inclusive)
çaki [Caki] = we (exclusive)
zaçaki [zaCaki] = he/she and I (dual)
klarä [klax9] = you and I (dual intimate)

And 6 ways to say "you"

rja [xja] = thou (sg.)
jära [j9ra] = thou (sg. intimate)
srath [sxat_h] = the 2 of you (dual adressee)
raith [xait_h] = you all (plural adressee)
sari [saxi] = you all (singular adressee)
zasari [zasaxi] = you and he/she/someone (dual)

And I've already removed the dual intimate "you". For the moment, I have 18
pronouns and I think that I will maybe add 4 new oddities: someone,
something, noone, nothing. Of course, each pronoun has its corresponding
possessive article and substantive (my/mine).

It's precise, flexible and accurate.  ;-)  I can say without ambiguities:

He said he will come tomorrow.

This is a good ambiguous translation excercise!

See ya,

=====================
Remi Villatel
maxilys@normandnet.fr
=====================

Replies