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

Philippe Caquant wrote:

>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)
>
>
>
Most languages that have an Inclusive/Exclusive distinction also have a
dual.

So, the various meanings that are covered -

1.INC.DU = me and you
1.EXC.DU=me and him/her(you left that out)
1.INC.PL=me, you(sg or pl), and optionally someone else/some other people
1.EXC.PL=me, and some other people.

The only ambiguous thing there is in the Inclusive Plural.  It's not
possible to tell the number of either the adressees or the other people,
except that there is at least one of the former.  Possibly you could use
'we and him', 'we and they', etc.