inclusive/exclusive

[ROOD DAVID S]

The point is that unyanpi is neither exclusive nor inclusive -- it is
'I and others'.  On the other hand, unye 'you and I went' could only be
used to remind someone of something the two of you had done at some point;
it has to be limited to two people, and only the speaker and a single
addressee are available.  It's most common as an imperative -- unyin
kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.

David S. Rood
Dept. of Linguistics
Univ. of Colorado
295 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309-0295
USA
rood at colorado.edu

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Carolyn Quintero wrote:

> As for 'dual', I unlike you find it easy to think of two first persons.  No
> problem for me there.
>
> In Lakota if unyanpi 'we (exclusive) go' is exclusive, it must be excluding
> 'you'.  It must mean 'we three, I, Susie and  John go'.  Is this not right?
> If it means 'I, you and others' then it should be 'inclusive', that is
> inclusive of the hearer.
>
> Dual unye 'we inclusive go' seems strange, unless it means only 'you and I
> go'
>
> I've no idea what's going on here if its not this way.
> C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of shokooh Ingham
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:02 PM
> To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
>
> 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
>