<DIV id=RTEContent>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. <div class=MsoNormal> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></div> <div class=MsoNormal>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.</div> <div class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class=MsoNormal>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.</div> <div class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class=MsoNormal>Third, if 'you and I' function as object (patient), -pi must be present
:</div>
<div class=MsoNormal>na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'he hears us' but not *na'-uN-x'uN. </div> <div class=MsoNormal>If 'you and I' function as subject (agent), -pi may be present:</div> <div class=MsoNormal>na-'uN-x'uN-pi 'we hear him/her'<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>OR: na'-uN-x'uN. </div></DIV> <DIV id=RTEContent> </DIV> <DIV id=RTEContent>Regina</DIV> <DIV id=RTEContent><BR><BR><B><I>ROOD DAVID S <rood@spot.Colorado.EDU></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR><BR>> Hi David,<BR>><BR>> Can you tell us the plural form of<BR>> unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.<BR><BR>If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi kte heci."<BR><BR>><BR>> In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' excluding you. I<BR>> had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the house' with<BR>> dual, not plural, verb ending.<BR><BR>I
have to
rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I expect<BR>'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with John we (pl)<BR>went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'. "John kichi unye" would<BR>be 'you and I went with John'.<BR><BR>I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a noun into a<BR>complex noun phrase like English "John and I".<BR><BR>Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please correct or<BR>confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously.<BR><BR>> David<BR>> Thanks,<BR>> Carolyn<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>> [mailto:owner-siouan@lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM<BR>> To: siouan@lists.colorado.edu<BR>> Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive<BR>><BR>> This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 'exclusive'; that<BR>> /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just
generic
'first<BR>> person plural'. An 'other' category.<BR>><BR>> So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use isn't<BR>> really appropriate here.<BR>><BR>> Dave Costa<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> > The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is<BR>> > 'I and others'. On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be<BR>> > used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point;<BR>> > it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single<BR>> > addressee are available. It's most common as an imperative -- unyin<BR>> > kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.<BR>> ><BR>> > David S. Rood<BR>> > Dept. of Linguistics<BR>> > Univ. of Colorado<BR>> > 295 UCB<BR>> > Boulder, CO 80309-0295<BR>> > USA<BR>> > rood@colorado.edu<BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><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>