Re: Inclusive or exclusive?

Hey.

Perhaps relevant in this discussion is the pronoun system of Shoshoni
(a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in the North American Great Basin).
Shoshoni distinguishes three numbers, singular, dual, and plural, and
distinguishes 1st person dual and plural inclusive and exclusive. The
forms are:

ne (1sing); neweh (1du.excl), taweh (1du.incl); nemmen (1pl.excl),
tammen (1pl.incl)

The dual and plural inclusive forms have cognates in other Uto-Aztecan
languages, including those which do not make an inclusive/exclusive
distinction. So the exclusive forms are innovated. They are
transparently built upon the first person singular pronoun.

Dirk

On 3/20/07, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> <<
> Seems to me that nan.tay would simply be a generic plural (we,
> irrespective
> of incl/excl.), but you could dictate that is's one or the other (say,
> inclusive), but then you'd need another suffix (tan ?) for exclusive.
> Could
> you devise anything from the 3d pers. pronoun form?
>
> Another possibility would be to create a form based on nan+gan for incl.
>  >>
>
> I agree.  It seems you have two strategies accompanied by two
> rationales:
>
> (1) I+plu. = exclusive; I+you = inclusive
> Rational: Inclusivity is special, and needs to be marked specially.
>
> (2) I+plu. = inclusive; I+? or novel form = exclusive
> Rational: When you include someone, you speak for them, so
> your singular voice, in a sense, becomes pluralized.  If this were
> to happen, I'd assume, historically, that the I+plu. form would
> be the innovation, and that some novel form had already existed
> (e.g., "I" and "we" being distinct and "I and I" being the new one).
>
> -David
> *******************************************************************
> "A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
> "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>
> -Jim Morrison
>
> http://dedalvs.free.fr/
>