inclusive/exclusive

[Rankin, Robert L]

> 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.
 
Yup, as I said in my evidently-unread posting, there is no inclusive/exclusive opposition in modern Mississippi Valley Siouan languages.  Period.  It's 'dual-inclusive' vs. 'we'uns'.  
 
To me 'dual' refers to nominal or pronominal category in which both members of the duality have to occupy the same argument category, i.e., "I see you" wouldn't qualify as a dual in the Indo-European (and I suspect Americanist) tradition.  Both participants would have to share subjecthood or objecthood, etc.  As I recall Dixon's person categories are 1st, 2nd, 3rd and inclusive.
 
Bob