Talk:Clusivity

message: Might it be an idea to group the various language examples into language groups? At the moment a non-linguist would not be able to identify family patterns. Andrew Yong 11:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Good idea. kwami 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I have heard that the Indo-European language Marathi also has the inclusive and exclusive we differentiation. Could anyone having info on this update the page. I do not know much about this unfortunately. Kartheeque
:There's also the 's of let's in English, which is implicitly inclusive. Mentioned as such in a footnote in Quirk's CGEL IIRC. jnestorius(talk) 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. Indeed, a number of languages have first-person-plural imperatives (English "Let's go!", French "Allons-y !", Spanish "Vámonos!", Hebrew [bo(ɪ) n'lex]), and I'd imagine these are always implicitly inclusive. —RuakhTALK 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: References? (though that does seem to be a likely etymology for nosotros.) kwami (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish also has the nos/nosotros distinction but in spanish it has nothing to do with clusivity. It may have something to do with clusivity in galician but it would require a very good source to show that it isn't just the same distinction as in spanish.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusive and Exclusive we in Indo-European

message: I just added a note re Fula (and also a link to the page on Chinese pronouns). Re African languages (and the 4 main families thereof), this may be a feature of many more than just Fula, but I do not have that info. If this can be determined & added, it would also make stronger the case for organizing the info by language families. --A12n 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew (which isn't itself an African language, per se, but which is in the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family) doesn't distinguish the two, and I've never heard anything to suggest any other Afro-Asiatic languages do. I've no clue about the other major language families. —RuakhTALK 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's found in several of the Khoisan families. kwami 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African languages 

message: What would the third category be called?
*mi'a (speaker and others)
*mi'o (speaker and listener)
*ma'a (speaker, others and listener)
--70.21.4.207 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is exclusive and the latter two are inclusive. —RuakhTALK 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some languages, (2) is treated as grammatically singular, and (3) as plural. In languages which have a dual, (2) is dual and (3) plural. I don't know of any language which distinguishes (3) from (speaker + several listeners). kwami 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[lojban]] 

message: Redirected Clusivity to Inclusive and exclusive we because it is an alternate term for the same meaning, and has much more content there. Clusivity sounds more official and "scientific", but only one article links to it. mordel (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like that title better. Less awkward. Copying rather than moving this there to avoid loss of their page history. kwami (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, there is no page history to speak of. (Just the same comment as mordel made here.) I'll move it. kwami (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: Do not confuse this idea with grammatical categories.  The exemplified "let's" is a first person imperative marker, whereas "let us" (as used in the example) is a second person imperative of "let" with the object "us" (and so, not being an auxiliary, has no corresponding verbal complement.)  But that's only half the trouble.  The other half is that "let's" is a contraction of "let us" -- in the other form, that is, as a marker of the first person imperative.  --VKokielov (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's not paradigmatic clusivity, but whether you use the contraction in the imperative corresponds strongly to clusivity. kwami (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First person plural imperative is always inclusive by semantical necessity. When I want us  to perform a collective action, I address us  in the imperative: the subject is  the addressee, so trivially the addressee is included. Rulatir (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English "let us" and "let's" 

message: ABSTRACT: An analysis of the variation nós and a gente in subject position is presented. Using the framework of Labovian Quantitative Sociolinguistics, social and linguistic factors were identified in order to explain the different distribuitions of these forms. The study focused the use of educated speakers of three main geographical regions of Brasil: Rio de Janeiro (Southeastern area), Porto Alegre (Southern area) and Salvador (Northeastern area).
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-44501998000200006&script=sci_arttext
:há uma diferenciação no emprego de nós e a gente em relação a um uso mais restrito ou mais genérico. O falante utiliza preferencialmente o pronome nós para se referir a ele mesmo e mais o interlocutor (não-eu), ou a não-pessoa: referente [+perceptível] e [+determinado]. No momento em que o falante amplia a referência, indeterminando-a, há maior favorecimento para a forma a gente.
translation:
:There is a differentiation in the use of NÓS [we] and A GENTE [we] in relation to a more restricted or more generic use. The speaker uses the pronoun preferential NÓS to refer to himself and the interlocutor (not-I), or the not-person: referring [+perceivable] and [+determinated]. At the moment where the speaker extends the reference, making it indetermined, there's greater favoring of A GENTE.
::Okay, this would appear to not be a clusivity difference then, since inclusive may be either nós or a gente depending on whether there is also a third party involved. kwami (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clusivity in Brazilian Portuguese 

message: Tongan, and I'd assume the other Polynesian languages, has inclusivity/exclusivity in the singular as well as the plural:
:u, ou, ku, au: exclusive singular (="I" or "me," depending on context): form used depends on what preposition or tense marker precedes, but has nothing to do with clusivity
:kita: inclusive singular (="I" or "me," as above, but only if the statement could be equally true for someone else; fortunately, AFAIK, used only in some proverbs)
:ma (dual), mau (plural), etc.: exclusive plural (="we," not including person(s) addressed)
:ta (dual), tau (plural), etc.: inclusive plural (="we," including at least one person addressed)
Anyone with more complete and/or accurate information about this, whether in Tongan or other languages, is kindly invited to enlighten us. 66.234.218.146 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clusivity is a plural distinction, and cannot be expressed in the singular.  The fact that the inclusive and exclusive pronouns may be plural forms of different words for "I" that are both used in the language is actually very common, and is treated in the second paragraph of the "Morphology" section.  The important thing to get here is that if a first person pronoun pluralizes to inclusive we that doesn't make that first person pronoun somehow inherently inclusive, because inclusivity only means something if you have more than one person.  Hope this helps.  Eniagrom (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clusivity in the singular 

message: Recently a modification by an anonymous IP to the Kannada language entry in the Clusivity examples table came up on my watchlist. Looking at his contributions, previous vandalism made me suspicious of the edit, although there were also GF additions to Kannada-related subjects and it could be a dynamic IP. Anyway, I don't speak Kannada, so I just ran the word he added (ನಂದೇ) through Google translate, which returned "promised me" as its meaning. The word we already had, "ನಮ್ಮ", was translated as "our", which seems closer to what one might expect. But Google translate is pretty crappy for non-European languages and I was unsure about whether I should revert or not.
But then, looking at the entry, I saw this:
:The exclusive form is no longer used in most dialects. Kannada is the only Dravidian language to have lost its clusivity distinction.
And so the whole subject became moot: if Kannada is indeed the only Dravidian language to have lost its clusivity distinction, why on earth is included in an already too-long table? So I removed it.Eniagrom (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kannada 

message: There seems to be no discussion of inclusive and exclusive object pronoun forms - the "us" form in English or of the possessive forms "our" and "ours". I presume that these can also be marked for clusivity. Shouldn't these also be included in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.61.213 (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're describing is a distinction of case, which is not really related to the existence of a clusivity distinction as such. One would expect a language which distinguishes both case and clusivity to mark the clusivity distinction as appropriate on the various declensions of its pronouns. That said if you would like to expand the article, please do.Eniagrom (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object Pronoun and Possessive Clusivity 

message: Could someone improve the table alignment? I didn't manage to find a more aesthetic one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:707B:69EF:9981:55D (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve table aesthetic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clusivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609180626/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/55/59/Simon-2005-Only-You-Clusivity.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/55/59/Simon-2005-Only-You-Clusivity.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The German Wikipedia article says Cherokee is one
of the languages with this feature.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inklusives_und_exklusives_Wir#Cherokee
This is outside my area(s) of expertise, so I don't feel comfortable 
editing the page, but I hope someone else will.
EinkomischerKauz (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, rather than having the table spammed with yet another Austronesian or Algonquian language. Done! –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee 

message: I added Udmurt language to the table, but I puzzled what the heck "Singular related to" means. Can some explain? - Altenmann >talk 02:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that column says whether the first person singular pronoun is related (morphologically?) to exclusive we, inclusive we, both, or neither. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx, noted. - Altenmann >talk 03:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table