Re: Inclusive or exclusive?

On 3/20/07, Jeffrey Jones <jsjonesmiami@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:43:06 +0200, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> 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)'? Its counterpart would be smth like _tan_ (that
> >is, similar to the sn stem).
> >
> >Friendly
> >-- Yitzik
>
> IIRC, Potawatomi uses different plural markers; 1st person + the 1st plural is
> exclusive and 1st person + the 2nd plural is inclusive. The 2nd person uses the
> 2nd plural.
I discuss Potawatomi pronouns and verbal inflection in my
undergraduate morphology class. The pronouns are: nin '1sg', kin
'2sg', win '3sg'; kinan '1pl.incl', ninan '2pl.excl' kinwa '2pl',
winwa '3pl'. Pronouns seem to be built on the stem -in. In the plural,
the suffixes -an '1pl' and -wa 'non-1pl' are added to the pronominal
stem. The prefixes are n- '1', k- '2', and w- '3'. To make a first
person plural inclusive, you use k- '2' together with -an '1pl'. For
first person exclusive, you use n- '1' together with -an '1pl'. I find
it to be an elegant system, and i just may use it sometime.

So there's another Native American system for Yitzik to ponder :-).

> Jeff
Dirk

Reply