Inclusive, Exclusive, Recusive (fwd)

[ROOD DAVID S]

We use both negation and question patterns for that kind of "softening" of
commands and suggestions.  "Don't you want to come with us?" is less
abrupt and demanding than "Do you want to come with us?"  There is no
logical negative in the first example -- I'm not asking "Is it the
case that you do not want to come with us?".  This of course leads to what
speakers of languages like Lakota and Japanese perceive as the "backwards"
use of "yes" and "no" as answers.  If you answer to the negative, as
Lakota does, you would use "yes" to say "I don't want to" and "no" to say
"you're wrong -- I do want to".  Instead, English ignores the negative and
uses "yes" for "I do want to" for both questions.  I think this would
extend to situations where the listener is not involved, but I don't have
time to cogitate on possible examples right now.

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

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Rory M Larson wrote:

> > Yeah, this is the "let's" that Paul Hopper (I think it is) writes "lets"
> without the apostrophe.  He calls it the "hortative" -- a product of
> grammaticalization.  It can be second person, as in John's examples.  It
> can be 1st sg. as in "Lets help you get that tire changed."  There are
> many contexts in which it cannot be representing "Let us".
>
> It seems like a pattern of softening commands and second person
> references through use of a pluralizing/abstracting device.  Do
> we ever use this for third person or other situations where the
> listener is not involved?
>
> Rory