inclusive/exclusive

[REGINA PUSTET]

Let me throw in my 2 cents on the Lakota dual, based on my grammar files. Some of this might have been said before in the discussion, one way or another.    
  First of all, the Lakota dual is a dying category of very limited use these days. Even in cases in which circumstances would require a dual (i.e. the combination of speaker and addressee, 'you and I') people tend to use the plural marker -pi in combination with uN- and its alternants.
   
  Second, I have checked on the scope of dual forms like 'uNk-ixat'e' 'you and I laugh' and the output on other pairings of persons is: *I and s/he, *you and s/he.
   
  Third, if 'you and I' function as object (patient), -pi must be present:
  na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'he hears us' but not *na'-uN-x'uN. 
  If 'you and I' function as subject (agent), -pi may be present:
  na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'we hear him/her'  OR: na'-uN-x'uN. 

   
  Regina
  

ROOD DAVID S <rood at spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:  

> Hi David,
>
> Can you tell us the plural form of
> unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.

If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci."

>
> In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I
> had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with
> dual, not plural, verb ending.

I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect
'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl)
went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would
be 'you and I went with John'.

I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a
complex noun phrase like English "John and I".

Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or
confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously.

> David
> Thanks,
> Carolyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
>
> This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that
> /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just generic 'first
> person plural'. An 'other' category.
>
> So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't
> really appropriate here.
>
> Dave Costa
>
>
>
> > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is
> > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be
> > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point;
> > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single
> > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin
> > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.
> >
> > David S. Rood
> > Dept. of Linguistics
> > Univ. of Colorado
> > 295 UCB
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295
> > USA
> > rood at colorado.edu
>



			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20051213/fbb14eb7/attachment.html>