Re: Probability of Article Replacement?

Rachel Klippenstein wrote:
> Interestingly, although the plural 1.5 person pronoun
> is essentially inclusive "we", Old Starrish has no
> word for exclusive "we", since the 1st person plural
> could be inclusive or exclusive "we" (although it may
> in later history have developed into exclusive "we").
Interesting.  In my Uatakassi, the first person dual acquired a
specifically inclusive meaning.  For a dual exclusive, you had to use
instead the first person paucal, which could also be inclusive.
Likewise, the plural could be either way.  In later stages, the paucal
developed into a plural exclusive, while the plural itself acquired an
inclusive meaning by way of contrast with paucal.  The dual, meanwhile,
remained as a dual-inclusive.  Thus, while for inclusive there was a
dual-plural contrast, the exclusive had no such contrast.

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42