Minimal vs. augmented inclusive cohortative - specification

[Michael Daniel]

Dear David, dear all,

this is in response to David's comment.

 By saying

> Davaj-te    spoj-em
> PART-2PL    sing-1PL
> Let's sing! [thou and me and one or more person more]

I actually meant that these 'one or more person more' may consist of or
include multiple addressees. Actually, in the case of Russian, the
construction:
Davaj-te    spoj-em
is also preferred for (if not limited to) a group comprising the speaker and
multiple addressees. So, Hebrew construction is a complete analogue of the
Russian construction.

To make my point clearer - I am interested in all languages which make a
distinction between cohortatives towards
[speaker and addressee] alone and towards any larger group which consists of
[speaker and multiple addressees] or [speaker and addressee and
non-locutors] or [speaker and multiple addressees and non-locutor(s)] - the
essential is that the number of persons referred to is more than two.

Of course, taking into account the point that David brought into discussion,
any additonal info would be useful if the language differentiate between
these different kinds of 'more than two people' cohortatives.



David Gil wrote:

> I am fascinated by what seems to be a semantic contrast betwen the
> Russian forms cited by Nina and what would seem to be a calque
> construction in Hebrew:
>
> > Davaj    spoj-em!
> > PART    sing-1PL
> > Let's sing! [thou and me]
> >
> > Davaj-te    spoj-em
> > PART-2PL    sing-1PL
> > Let's sing! [thou and me and one or more person more]
>
> Bo             naSir
> come:IMP:2SGM  sing:FUT:1PL
> Let's sing!  [thou and me]
>
> Bou            naSir
> come:IMP:2PL   sing:FUT:1PL
> Let's sing!  [y'all and me]
>
> Unlike its Russian counterpart (according to Nina), the second sentence
> in Hebrew is only appropriate in the case where the addressees
> themselves form a plural set (either directly, or, less commmonly, by
> means of a single addressee together with one or more associate
> members).  It is NOT appropriate if the addressee is strictly singular
> (even if the speaker himself expects other people, not addressed, to
> participate in the singing).
>
> I find it very curious that such a contrast should exist, between such
> superficially similar constructions in different languages.
>
> Anyway, Hebrew offers an example of a language in which there is no
> distinction between "dual" and "1st plural imperative".  Two other
> languages that I'm familiar with which lack that distinction are Tagalog
> and Riau Indonesian.
>
> --
> David Gil
>
> Department of Linguistics
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Inselstrasse 22, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
>
> Telephone: 49-341-9952321
> Fax: 49-341-9952119
> Email: gil at eva.mpg.de
> Webpage:  http://monolith.eva.mpg.de/~gil/