Re: Inclusive or exclusive?
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 17:16 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:43:06 +0200, Isaac Penzev wrote:
>...> Hi ppl,
>
> I want to ask for your advice. I'll be brief.
>
> If a language makes personal pronouns plural by adding a plural suffix to
> singular stems, like _gan_ 'thou' > _gan.tay_ 'you (pl)', and has
> inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1pl, would _nan.tay_ (< _nan_ 'I') mean
> 'we (incl)' or 'we (excl)'?
We(excl). I have read somewhere that if 1) plural pronouns are formed from
singular pronouns by means of a suffix and 2) there is an inclusive/exclusive
distinction, the regular plural of the 1st person pronoun has exclusive
meaning. In Tok Pisin, for example, you have
_mi_ 'I' _mipela_ 'we (excl.)'
_yumipela_ 'we (incl.)'
_yu_ 'thou' _yupela_ 'you (pl.)'
(Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Or AFMCL Old Albic:
_ma_ 'I' _mi_ 'we (excl.)'
_vi_ 'we (incl.)'
_tha_ 'thou' _thi_ 'you (pl.)'
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Reply