Sorta exclusive, sorta inclusive

After giving it quite a bit of thought, I've discovered that the 1st
person dual in W. is inclusive, it can never be used exclusively.  Now,
there are two other numbers, paucal and plural.  The distinction between
the two is not clear-cut.  Generally, the plural tends to be viewed as
less personal, and is therefore avoided when the meaning is inclusive.
In fact, out of context, plural is generally assumed to be exclusive,
while paucal tends to be inclusive.  These aren't completely inclusive
or exclusive.  The Paucal can be used exclusively, especially if the
group in question consists of fewer than 5 or 6 individuals.  Also,
plural can be used inclusively, especially if the group in question is
very large.  However, dual is NEVER exclusive.  In later stages, those
tendencies became fully grammatical, and the number system became:
1st singular (former singular)
1st dual inclusive (former dual)
1st plural inclusive (former paucal)
1st plural exclusive (former plural)
Thus conforming to the 2nd and third person which only distinguish
singular/dual/plural (2nd had a paucal form in Old W., but that was lost
in Modern W., and pre-Old W. is believed to have had a paucal in 3rd
person and nouns as well)
--
Happy that Nation, - fortunate that age, whose history is not diverting
-- Benjamin Franklin
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ #: 18656696
AIM screen-name: NikTailor