Re: first person plural

Roger Mills wrote:
> Dennis Paul Himes wrote:
>>
>>     "Bob" is the first person exclusive plural nominative pronoun
>> (pronounced /bob/), and "bee" the first person inclusive nominative
>> plural (/be/).  If Tifa was talking, then he'd use the following:
>>
>> talking to  talking about       old system  new system
>> Na          Tifa and Na         bee         bee
>> Na          Tifa, Na, and EExa  bee         bob
>> Na and EExa Tifa, Na, and EExa  bee         bee
>> Uza         Tifa, Na, and EExa  bob         bob
>
> OK. The first three would be Indonesian kita (incl.) since the hearer Na
> is involved in all cases. Only the last would be kami (excl.) since Uza is
> not part of the group discussed. (As in your old system. Using Indo. just
> helps me relate it to a familiar natlang.)
>
> #2, I suppose, might be used where EExa is not present, but it's
> understood he/she is/was/will be involved. In 3, or course, all the people
> spoken about are present.
>
> This would be correct too, I assume-- (Tifa talking)--
> talking to  talking about       old system  new system
> Uza          Tifa and Na         (bob?)        bob
    Yes.

> And what would happen if Tifa is talking to Na and Uza about something
> Tifa, Na and EExa (but not Uza) did???  Oh my. (I think Indo. would use
> excl. kami.)
    This would be bob in the new system.  I'm actually not sure what I would
have done under the old.

>>     The change I'm making is in the second case, where first, second, and
>> third are all combined.  This is now what I've been calling "exclusive",
>> but that term doesn't seem right any more, since no one's excluded in
>> this case.
>
> I see your point, and perhaps for cultural reasons the language might want
> to distinguish 1 and 3 from 2 and 4; but you're right about "exclusive"
> being the wrong term for #2, which seems to involve _including absent
> others_. Technically it seems to be "inclusive-exclusive" but of course
> that won't do :-))
>
> Since 1,3 are genuinely inclusive, and 4 is genuinely exclusive, a
> possible name for 2 might be "absentive"; then the rule would be "Use
> [bob] whenever (1) the hearer is not part of the group spoken about (true
> exclusive) or (2) whenever the group spoken about includes hearer and
> absent others."
    (1) is, of course, just a special case of (2), at least in the plural.
I prefer to think of the rule as "bee" if the speaker and listener(s), and
no one else, are being refered to, and "bob" in all other cases.  This
covers the singular, too, if you consider the rhetorical uses of "be" (which
is the sing. of "bee") to be variations of talking to oneself.
    "Absentive" is a good name for "bob".  Of course, it doesn't work in the
singular, but I can live with that.  "Bee" could then be "presentive".  I
was also thinking of "intimate" for "bee".

 ===========================================================================

                 Dennis Paul Himes    <>    himes@cshore.com
                   http://home.cshore.com/himes/dennis.htm
        Gladilatian page: http://home.cshore.com/himes/glad/lang.htm
       Seezzitonian page: http://home.cshore.com/himes/umuto/lang.htm

Disclaimer: "True, I talk of dreams; which are the children of an idle
brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy; which is as thin of substance as
the air."                      - Romeo & Juliet, Act I Scene iv Verse 96-99