Re: first person plural

Dennis Paul Himes wrote:
>     Seezzitonian now has both inclusive and exclusive first person.  In
> the
> plural they've been distinguished by whether or not the second person is
> included.  In the singular the exclusive is usually used, the inclusive
> reserved for certain rhetorical situations (stage soliloquies, talking to
> oneself, certain oaths).
Nice.

 I've decided to change the distinction in the
> plural to be keyed off of whether or not a third person is included.  So
> first person inclusive plural would mean the speaker and listener(s) and
> no
> one else, while first person exclusive plural would mean the speaker, at
> least one person neither the speaker or a listener, and possibly also the
> listener(s).
Inclusive is clear: I/we and you (sg.or pl.) but no others. (This would be
Indonesian kita). This might develop from an original dual "you and I".

Also clear, the Indo. exclusive kami (I/we and others, but not you sg/pl).
Perhaps originally < he/they and I.

I'm having trouble conceiving a situation where your "exclusive" (I/we and
others, and you) would be used. Wouldn't this just be a general "plural"?
Just "we all". Could you give an example?

Replies