Re: Zaik! (Hi there!) - Description of Lyanjen

Barry Garcia wrote:
> >There are exclusive and inclusive we.
>
> Ahh yes, Saalangal also has this feature as well.
Classical Watakassí was developing this distinction.  Pre-Classical W
had four numbers for first person: singular, dual, paucal, and plural
(second and third had singular, dual, and plural).  In Classical
Watakassí, first person dual had become purely inclusive, for
"we.dual.exclusive" one had to use the paucal.  There was a tendency to
use the paucal for exclusive and the plural for inclusive, but it was
only a tendency, large numbers always took plural, and small numbers
(under about 6) always took paucal.  The definition of "large number",
of course, depends on the situation.  It was the middle numbers wherein
the inclusive-exclusive division tended to show up.

In Post-Classical Watakassí, the distinction had solidified, creating a
distinction between:
Singular (Cl. singular)
Dual Inclusive (Cl. Dual)
Plural Inclusive (Cl. Plural)
Plural Exclusive (Cl. Paucal) - that is, two more more people.

So, the number system seemed skewed, inclusive has a dual-plural
distinction, but not exclusive.  Not to mention that second and third
persons still had a dual number.  Eventually a dual exclusive pronoun
was formed by fusing the number "two" to the plural exclusive pronoun,
however, there was no change in verbal inflection.

--
"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and
I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor