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

As I understand, WE can be:

me + you (single locutor + single addressee)
me + you all (single locutor + (several addressees))
we all (locutor talking in the name of several people,
addressee excluded)
we all + you ((locutor talking in the name of several
people) + addressee)
we all + you all ((locutor talking in the name of
several people) + (several addressees)

So, the same for OUR(s).

But it might be clever to allow a possibility of
undetermination or ambiguity, or for the obvious
cases.

--- Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
> Quoting Trebor Jung <treborjung@...>:
>
> > Merhaba!
> >
> > My conlang Tsaan /tsa:n/ has a pronoun system like
> this:
> > I
> > we (excluding the listener)
> > we (including the listener)
> > you
> > yall
> > he/she
> > they(?I'll think about it)
> >
> > Is it necessary to include the feature of
> inclusiveness in possessive
> > markers? So do you say 'That's our-EXCL new house'
> vs. 'That's our-INCL new
> > house', or is that necessary? Could one tell from
> context the intended
> > meaning? In this case it's pretty obvious, but are
> there cases where context
> > cannot be used to determine the meaning?


=====
Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

Reply