<DIV>> I have a paper on that I can send folks. ></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bob, I for one would like a copy. Thanks!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dave<BR><BR><B><I>"Rankin, Robert L" <rankin@ku.edu></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I have a paper on that I can send folks. Bob<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From: owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman<BR>Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM<BR>To: siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive<BR><BR><BR>> Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. ><BR><BR>Just curious. I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language?<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR>"Rankin, Robert L" <RANKIN@KU.EDU>wrote:<BR><BR>Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), t
he
Mississippi Valley languages, nowadays at least, seem to have dual/plural, with dual including the person addressed, i.e., you&me. So uN(k)-VERB is 'inclusive' and uN(k)-VERB-api is 'we (more than just you and I)'. So if I understand it correctly there is indeed a 'dual-inclusive' in MVS but there is no corresponding 'exclusive', just a generalized 'plural'. And the plural, as far as I know, does not necessarily exclude the p erson addressed.<BR><BR>The original inclusive/exclusive distinction may be preserved in other subgroups of Siouan. I think Randy has found some evidence for it in Crow and there is evidence in Tutelo in a "hapax legomenon" form. Mandan retains ruN- as its general 'we' prefix. Catawba retains nuN- as an object, 'us', and the original inclusive/exclusive distinction is intact in Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. <BR><BR>I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun uNkiye as far as this distinction goes. Are t
here
distinct forms uNkiye/uNkiyepi?? Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system?<BR><BR>Bob<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From: owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham<BR>Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM<BR>To: siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>Subject: inclusive/exclusive<BR><BR><BR><BR>I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for<BR>about twelve years that I have been using the terms<BR>e xclusive and inclusive wrongly. I always thought<BR>that 'exclusive we' uNkiye meant that the 3rd person<BR>was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that<BR>the 3rd person could be included. If it is the other<BR>way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is<BR>exclusive, what is it excluding? It does not exclude<BR>2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a<BR>third party'. Possibly there is some other rational<BR>for this use of the terminology. Does anyone know<BR>what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where<BR>nimiic
inaan
(exclusive we eat) means 'I and others<BR>excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat)<BR>means 'I and possibly others including you'. I also<BR>note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in<BR>Lakota meaning 'you and I'. Does anyone know whether<BR>it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which<BR>case it would not really be a dual.<BR>We live and learn<BR>Bruce<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>___________________________________________________________<BR>Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>Yahoo! Shopping<BR>Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping <HTTP: ;_ylc="X3oDMTE2bzVzaHJtBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNob2xpZGF5LTA1" shopping.yahoo.com *http: shopping footer mail_us us.rd.yahoo.com><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR></DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Yahoo! Shopping<br>
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/footer/shopping/*http://shopping.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTE2bzVzaHJtBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNob2xpZGF5LTA1
">Yahoo! Shopping</a>