inclusive/exclusive

[ROOD DAVID S]

Bruce, the way I've always understood this, the Lakota contrast is between
a "dual inclusive", specifically "you (sg) and I" (without pi), and forms
(with "pi") that do not signal the inclusive/exclusive distinction.
For at least some of the speakers I've worked with, moreover, even the
"dual inclusive" is applicable ONLY to agent/subject roles; you have to
have the "pi" with the object forms even if it's just the two of you.

World-wide, I believe the contrast "inclusive" vs. "exclusive" is always a
first person non-singular category and refers to the inclusion or
exclusion of the addressee.  Moreover, it is almost always the case that
if there is regular plural morphology, and it is applied to the first
person singular forms, the meaning is "exclusive", i.e. the plural of the
first person is naturally "they and we, but not you".  "Inclusive" has
special morphology, and often seems to include relics of both first person
and second person morphemes, as if saying "you and we"  is necessary when
"you" is included.  If we can argue from this kind of pattern to the
grammar of an individual language, the uniqueness of the Lakota "u(n)(k)"
morpheme relative to the singular suggests that this ought to be an old
"inclusive" that has expanded to cover all first person plurals.  Of
course, I do not consider adherence to common patterns to be proof of
anything, just supporting evidence.

David



On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, shokooh Ingham wrote:

> Yes In Cree inclusive includes the addressee
> kimiicinaw 'we (including you) eat', and nimiicinaan
> 'we not including you eat' is exclusive as in Wolfart
> in the Handbook p 400.  This makes sense, but the
> terminology does not seem to make sense in Lakota if
> unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, what would
> it exclude?  It does not exclude 3rd persons as it can
> mean "I, you and others".  Therefore to call unye 'we
> inclusive go' seems strange.  True it includes 2nd
> person, but so does the so called 'exclusive'.  Do you
> think that Siouanists have just copied Algonquianists?
>
> I also find the use of dual for unye "I and you go'
> strange'. If we call it 'dual' because two human
> beings are involved, shouldn't wanblake 'I see you'
> also be dual, also wanyanke 'he sees him' and
> wanmayalake 'you see me' also be duals?  All of these
> involve two participants.  In other languages such as
> Arabic a dula is where you have two 3rd persons like
> humaa 'they two' or two 2nd persons as in antumaa 'you
> two'.  'I and you' sommehow does not seem to be a dual
> in the same sense.  I'm sure I've seen arguments
> against this use of dual somewhere, but can't remember
> where.  Oh well, I suppose the usage can be stretched
> a bit
> Yours
> Bruce
> Sti--- David Costa <pankihtamwa at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I only just read this. I think you have had it
> > backwards. In my experience
> > in Algonquian, first person plural exclusive means
> > excluding the addressee,
> > and inclusive means including the addressee. In
> > other words, 'inclusive' is
> > 1st person + 2nd person (with 3rd included
> > optionally), while 'exclusive'
> > means 1st person + 3rd person, and not the addressee
> > (2nd).
> >
> > I'd be rather surprised to hear that
> > 'exclusive'/'inclusive' were used in
> > any other way in grammatical description.
> >
> > (Of course, I can't speak to how the Lakota forms
> > fit into this.)
> >
> > This distinction is extremely clear-cut in
> > Algonquian languages; more so
> > than in Siouan, from the sound of it. For one thing,
> > inclusive verbs take
> > the second person prefix, while exclusive verbs take
> > the first person
> > prefix.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>