inclusive/exclusive

[Jan F. Ullrich]

I have the same experience with Lakota dual as that described by David and
Regina. That is only if "I and you" are a subject of the action dual un(k)
(without -pi) is used.

One little correction:

> but I expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 'with
John we (pl) went', 
> or miye kichi John ye 'with me John went'.  

In my experience, John kichi unyanpi means 'We went with John'. 
'I and John went' is expressed either with John kichi ble - 'I went with
John' or 
Miye kichi John ye - 'John went with me'.

I have a feeling that the latter is not very common, though.


Jan




Jan F. Ullrich
Lakota Language Consortium
www.lakhota.org
E-mail: jfu at lakhota.org




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
> [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of ROOD DAVID S
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:12 AM
> To: Carolyn Quintero
> Cc: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> Subject: RE: inclusive/exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Can you tell us the plural form of
> > unyin kte heci 'let's go', said to one person.
> 
> 	If I'm speaking to more than one person, I say "unyanpi 
> kte heci."
> 
> >
> > In Osage, the dual can be either 'you and I' or 'he and I' 
> excluding 
> > you.  I had several sentences such as 'John and I are fixing up the 
> > house' with dual, not plural, verb ending.
> 
> 	I have to rely on non-native Sprachgefuehl here, but I 
> expect 'John and I went' to be John kichi unyanpi, literally 
> 'with John we (pl) went', or miye kichi John ye 'with me John 
> went'.  "John kichi unye" would be 'you and I went with John'.
> 
> 	I don't know of a way to coordinate a pronoun and a 
> noun into a complex noun phrase like English "John and I".
> 
> 	Please -- some of you Lakota speakers out there please 
> correct or confirm this before somebody takes me too seriously.
> 
> > David
> > Thanks,
> > Carolyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu 
> > [mailto:owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of David Costa
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:30 PM
> > To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
> > Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
> >
> > This sounds to me like there's no reason to use the term 
> 'exclusive'; 
> > that /unye/ is a sort of 'dual inclusive', and /unyanpi/ is just 
> > generic 'first person plural'. An 'other' category.
> >
> > So unless I'm missing something, the terminology Algonquianists use 
> > isn't really appropriate here.
> >
> > Dave Costa
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
>