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

Andreas Johansson wrote:

>Quoting Joe <joe@...>:
>
>
>
>>Trebor Jung wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Merhaba!
>>>
>>>I guess sg/pl for 2p is unnecessary, so it's scrapped now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why would sg/pl be unneccesary?  Just because we don't use it in English.
>>
>>
>
>?
>
>If it's not used in English (or some yall-free variants thereof), it's either
>not necessary, or English isn't a usable language. The later position does
>seem somewhat hard to defend.
>
>
>
Well, that's debateable. ;-) What I meant was that it's useful, even if
it isn't neccesary.