inclusive/exclusive

[Carolyn Quintero]

Osage speakers told me that the dual does not necessarily include the
hearer. I have many examples of this.  So dual may represent 'he and I' as
well as 'you and I'.  Same with plural, which may be either 'they and I' or
'he and I and you' or in fact 'you all and I'.  In Osage, then, 'inclusive'
and 'exclusive' may be applied to either 'dual' or 'plural'.

 

Carolyn 

 

  _____  

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
[mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Rankin, Robert L
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:46 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive

 

Although I think Siouan languages once had a real inclusive/exclusive
distinction (uN- 'inclusive'; nuN- 'exclusive'), the 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 person addressed.

 

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'.  

 

I really have no idea what Dakotan speakers do with the disjunctive pronoun
uNkiye as far as this distinction goes.  Are there distinct forms
uNkiye/uNkiyepi??  Or are the separable pronouns simply outside the system?

 

Bob

 

  _____  

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of shokooh Ingham
Sent: Sat 12/10/2005 3:40 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: inclusive/exclusive

I have just discovered, after studying Lakota for
about twelve years that I have been using the terms
exclusive and inclusive wrongly.  I always thought
that 'exclusive we'  uNkiye meant that the 3rd person
was excluded and 'inclusive we' uNkiyepi meant that
the 3rd person could be included.  If it is the other
way around, does it make sense? If uNkiyepi is
exclusive, what is it excluding?  It does not exclude
2nd person, because uNkiyepi could mean 'I, you and a
third party'.  Possibly there is some other rational
for this use of the terminology.  Does anyone know
what it is? It seems to make more sense in Cree where
nimiicinaan (exclusive we eat) means 'I and others
excluding you', whereas kimiicinaw (inclusive we eat)
means 'I and possibly others including you'.  I also
note that the term dual can be used for the uNkiye in
Lakota meaning 'you and I'.  Does anyone know whether
it can mean 'more than one of you plus I', in which
case it would not really be a dual.
We live and learn
Bruce


       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com