Re: Mixed person plurals

Hello, everybody.

I want to correct and re-post the second set of tables in this post,
not only because the alignment got so screwed-up the first time, but
also because one fact was wrong, and also because it's just easier to
do (takes fewer table-rows) with "trial" instead of "paucal".

Hello, John, and others; and thanks for writing.

[DISTINCTIONS YOU MAY NOT NEED TO MAKE]

[2ND FROM LOCAL 3RD IN 2+3 WHEN MORE THAN SINGULAR]
In your proposed system, when you are referring to more than one
person, all of whom are present and can hear, and some of whom you
are addressing, why do you need to distinguish
between those you are
addressing and those who can merely hear?
I think this may not be a very commonly useful distinction.
If you have, for instance, four grammatical numbers --
say singular,
dual, trial, and plural --
and your four grammatical persons -- 1st,
2nd, local 3rd, and non-local 4th -- then, to cover situations in
which no 1st or 4th persons were involved, only 8 combinations of
Number and Person would be necessary;
namely,
2nd sing, 3rd sing, 2nd du, 3rd du,
2nd tri, 3rd tri, 2nd plu, 3rd plu.

......... Number .. Total ... Person .. Grammatical
......... of ...... Number .. of ...... Number
Number... Other ... of ...... Pronoun . of
of ...... Hearers . Referents ......... Pronoun
Addressees ........ ......... Used .... Used
1 ....... 0 ....... 1 ....... 2nd ..... Singular
0 ....... 1 ....... 1 ....... 3rd ..... Singular
2 ....... 0 ....... 2 ....... 2nd ..... Dual
1 ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 2nd ..... Dual
0 ....... 2 ....... 2 ....... 3rd ..... Dual
3 ....... 0 ....... 3 ....... 2nd ..... Trial
2 ....... 1 ....... 3 ....... 2nd ..... Trial
1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 2nd ..... Trial
0 ....... 3 ....... 3 ....... 3rd ..... Trial
4 or more 0 ....... 4 or more 2nd ..... Plural
3 or more 1 or more 4 or more 2nd ..... Plural
2 or more 2 or more 4 or more 2nd ..... Plural
1 or more 3 or more 4 or more 2nd ..... Plural
0 ....... 4 or more 4 or more 3rd ..... Plural

However, if you insist on the distinction, you need eleven (11);
namely, 2nd sing, 3rd sing,
2nd du, 2nd+3rd incl du, 3rd du,
2nd tri, 2nd+3rd incl tri, 3rd tri,
2nd plu, 2nd+3rd incl plu, 3rd plu.

......... Number .. Total ... Person ..... Grammatical
......... of ...... Number .. of ......... Number
Number... Other ... of ...... Pronoun .... of
of ...... Hearers . Referents ............ Pronoun
Addressees ........ ......... Used ....... Used
1 ....... 0 ....... 1 ....... 2nd ........ Singular
0 ....... 1 ....... 1 ....... 3rd ........ Singular
2 ....... 0 ....... 2 ....... 2nd ........ Dual
1 ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 2nd+3rd incl Dual
0 ....... 2 ....... 2 ....... 3rd ........ Dual
3 ....... 0 ....... 3 ....... 2nd ........ Trial
2 ....... 1 ....... 3 ....... 2nd+3rd incl Trial
1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 2nd+3rd incl Trial
0 ....... 3 ....... 3 ....... 3rd ........ Trial
4 or more 0 ....... 4 or more 2nd ........ Plural
3 or more 1 or more 4 or more 2nd+3rd incl Plural
2 or more 2 or more 4 or more 2nd+3rd incl Plural
1 or more 3 or more 4 or more 2nd+3rd incl Plural
0 ....... 4 or more 4 or more 3rd ........ Plural

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

I hope that's a lot easier to read.
I hope it's easier to understand.
I hope it's right.
I hope it helps.

Keep writing.

Tom H.C. in MI