inclusive/exclusive

["Alfred W. Tüting"]

 > (Ján Ulrich:) 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. <<


I share this view.


 > 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'. <<


The first interpretation would be the same as my wife's use in 
Transylvanian Saxon: "Mer sen med Hans gegongen" - We went with John  (= 
I went with John).

BTW, the conlang lojban (to some extent influenced by American Native 
tongues' grammar) has:
mi 1st p. sg and pl (generic): I/we
do 2nd p. sg and pl (generic): you/you
mi'o [miho]: me and you
mi'a: I and others (exclusive you)
ma'a: me and you and others
do'o: you and others (exclusive me)

Alfred


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20051215/0b23938b/attachment.htm>