inclusive/exclusive

[Rankin, Robert L]

I have a paper on that I can send folks.      Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of David Kaufman
Sent: Sun 12/11/2005 3:49 PM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive


> Yuchi, oN- 'inclusive' and noN- 'exclusive'. >
 
Just curious.  I may be behind the times here, but has more research confirmed that Yuchi is definitively a Siouan language?
 
Dave

"Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu> wrote:

	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 p erson 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
	e xclusive 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
	
	
	


________________________________

Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/footer/shopping/*http://shopping.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTE2bzVzaHJtBF9TAzk1OTQ5NjM2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFnBHNsawNob2xpZGF5LTA1>