Re: Inclusive or exclusive?

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/

Reply