Re: Mixed person plurals

Hello, John, et al.

I will try to finish the reply I was interrupted in before.

[1ST PERSON GREATER-THAN-SINGULAR]

Many people have noted that there is little use for a true 1st-person-
plural as distinguished from 1st+2nd, 1st+3rd, or 1st+2nd+3rd.

It is useful in chants, songs, or prayers in unison; and perhaps
elsewhere, where there are actual multiple speakers; but,
generally, "we" doesn't mean "we speakers", it generally means "I,
the speaker, plus others with whom I am associated in this statement".

You may therefore find it unnecessary, since you are going to have
1+2, 1+3, 1+4, 1+2+3, 1+2+4, 1+3+4, and 1+2+3+4 person pronouns in
your conlang, to have any 1st person other-than-singular pronouns
exclusive of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person.

[MINIMAL VS AUGMENTED INSTEAD OF SINGULAR VS PLURAL]

Some linguists (Corbett mentions some of them in "Number", and I
think I mentioned some in an earlier post to this list about whether
there were any natlangs with both a trial and a paucal) suggest that
some languages have Minimal and Augmented numbers instead of Singular
and Plural numbers.

This allows the "inclusive persons" to not have gaps.

For instance, if your language had Singular, Dual, and Plural
Numbers, and had First, Second, 1-2-Inclusive, and Third Persons,
your chart would look like this;
------- Sing- Dual----- Plur
First-- Me--- Us2notyou Usallnotyou
12Incl- (gap) You'n'Me- Me'n'Y'all
Second- Thee- You2----- Y'all
Third-- It--- Them2---- Themall

But, if your language had Minimal, Unit-Augmented, and Augmented
Numbers, and the same persons, the 12Incl row would be different; it
could look like this:
------- Minimal-- Unit-Aug--- Augmented
First-- Me------- Us2notyou-- Usallnotyou
12Incl- You'n'Me- Us3You'n'Me Me'n'Y'all
Second- Thee----- You2------- Y'all
Third-- It------- Them2------ Themall

Your conlang, with its many "inclusive persons", could make very
constructive use of this Minimal vs Augmented instead of Singular vs
Plural scheme.

[WHAT IF YOU ADOPT ALL MY PROPOSALS AND NOBODY ELSE'S?]

What if you adopt all the proposals in this and my immediately
previous post, and none of those in anybody else's post, except those
I've accidentally duplicated, or in any of my posts that I've
forgotten about?

First off, the number of "persons" your pronouns would have would be
reduced; you would not need 2+3, 1+2+3, 2+3+4, nor 1+2+3+4.
You would need
1, 2, 3, 4, 1+2, 1+3, 1+4, 2+4, 3+4, 1+2+4, 1+3+4.
Second, you would not need the Augmented number for the 1st person.
So you would need only 21 pronouns.
1,2,3,4 Minimal would refer to one person each;
1+2,1+3,1+4,2+4,3+4 Minimal would refer to two persons each;
1+2+4, 1+3+4 would refer to three persons each.
2,3,4 Augmented would refer to at least two persons each;
1+2, 1+3, 1+4, 2+4, 3+4 Augmented would refer to at least three
persons each;
1+2+4, 1+3+4 would refer to at least four persons each.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that helps.

Thanks for writing.

Tom H.C. in MI