Wordsmith.org
Posted By: redclaw We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 03:26 AM
Is there any language that differentiates between an inclusive "we" (you and I) and an exclusive "we" (third parties and I)?

This would avoid conversations like:
Where do we have to go?
"We" are not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and watch my movie while you and your brother go to the store to buy food for tonight.
I know. But what store should we go to?
etc.

Or, maybe better, is there an archaic or slang modern expression in English with the same function (akin to "y'all" as a 2nd person plural).


Posted By: Bingley Re: We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 04:30 AM
Indonesian does.
Kami = we (not including you)
Kita = we (including you)

Bu, kami ke bioskop.
Mum, we're going to the cinema.

Bu, kita ke bioskop, yuk.
Let's go to the cinema, mum.

Bingley
Posted By: dxb Re: We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 04:18 PM
An interesting question that has me stumped for a good answer. Since replies seem as rare as arctic bluebirds I guess others are in the same boat.

I suppose here in Britland we might say to someone:

“Us lot are going to the pub.” Or less colloquially “We’re all going to the pub” (emphasis placed on ‘We’re’), or “We’re both going to the pub” or “We three are going to the pub”. But there seems to be no single word that clearly gives you the kind of thing that Bingley has described.

Welcome, by the way, and I have to ask, if your claw is red, how’s your tooth?


Posted By: Capfka Re: We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 09:19 PM
This is, obviously, opposed to the "royal" we. "We are not amused" referred, apocryphally of course, to the speaker only.

Posted By: Zed Re: We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 11:11 PM
English seems to miss a few pronouns that other languages have. You can't even specify plural or singular you let alone formal/informal.

Posted By: sjmaxq Re: We (Are you part of we?) - 07/23/03 11:38 PM
> You can't even specify plural or singular you

Well, what do y'all think of the above statement? Up here in Zild there is a plural you in everyday use. Unsurprisingly, if you accept the stereotypical image of Zilders, its yous.

Posted By: Zed Re: yous - 07/23/03 11:49 PM
In Newfoundland and possibly in other areas of the Maritimes they use yous(e) as well , but it's uncommon in the rest of Canada.

Posted By: dxb Re: yous - 07/24/03 10:23 AM
There, and I always 'yous(e)' came from the Bronx! Yous(e) doesn't does yous(e)?

Posted By: Bean Re: yous - 07/24/03 10:49 AM
Actually, Zed, in Newfoundland I've heard the plural "ye" far more than "yous". It's useful.

Posted By: maverick Re: We (long post warning) - 07/24/03 11:00 PM
Is there any language that differentiates between an inclusive "we" (you and I) and an exclusive "we" (third parties and I)?

Or, maybe better, is there an archaic or slang modern expression in English with the same function (akin to "y'all" as a 2nd person plural).



Welcome a’board, Redclaw – a good question! I don’t claim any highly specialised knowledge in this area, but here’s the outline I have picked up in language studies in case any of it interests you…

Starting with what’s perhaps known to you already: English, in common with most other languages originally had a more complex system of pronouns which amongst other things could discriminate between the plural and the singular referents, and also between formal/informal usage etc. This quality of the language got largely abraded because, between AD450 and 1100 there were two dominant blocks of language in use in the more populated parts of the British Isles – the Angles, Saxons and other north Germanic tribes who invaded and settled in the southern counties, and the Scandinavian (Viking) settlements that dominated the northern and some other coastal fringes. These languages had enough common roots from their mainland heritage to be able to share plenty of common ground but, like two pebbles rattled together in a concrete mixer the effect of this ‘language collision’ was to knock off and make similar the protruding elements of both – so a common English tongue emerged over time that took elements from both those stocks but eliminated a large measure of the awkward bits that might inhibit clear communication. With similar impacts from Latin and the later middle English assimilation of a lot of Norman and Parisian French, we thus ended up with a simplified system of pronouns – and other language features – which is nowadays simpler to use than most other Romance languages and many others (about which I confess to know only scraps) – but the cost is the broader less specific connotation about which you complained. Specifically to answer your question about the archaic forms, then: yes, we already use the plural form for everything, it’s the singular thou form you would have to resurrect. But is this true of all forms of English, given how wide a family the modern group actually is?

No. Typical pronoun usage in the North of England remains distinctive, for example by retaining the form thou, and able to communicate gradations of meanings lost to southern UK (ie, ‘Queen’s English’):

'Wheer as t'bin, mi Johnny lad,
Ah thowt they'd ner cum back;'

~ ask Rhuby for more of a demonstration! In Tyneside English there is a distinction made between the singular form you (which equates to the archaic form thou and the plural form yous (self explanatory!) I believe a similar form occurs in areas of the north-east and the north-west of England, in Scotland, Northern and Southern Ireland, parts of North America and Australia too. In the southern states of course, the plural can be made y’all to distinguish from the singular you, and as Jackie and AsP have taught all-y’all, there are further subtleties too (I await correction!)
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=49023

My impression is that most of the far-eastern forms of language retain a lot more subtlety in these respects – as Mr B noted about Indonesian, so in other ways does Japanese encode social distinctions within its pronoun grammar such as the difference between boku if talking to a male boss and ore if talking to a mate. I’m less sure about the inclusive/exclusive thing ~ come in, our Japanese speakers! There is another language I have seen an interesting reference too: Bislama is a dialect of Melanesian Pidgin spoken in Vanatu, in which English is the lexifier language… they do not distinguish gender at all in their pronoun system, so hem/em can mean ‘he’, ‘she’, or ‘it’. The sentence Hem i stap long haos can mean:
He’s in the house
She’s in the house
It’s in the house ~ depending on context!
But in other ways it’s more complex and subtle than English, which bears on your question about number specifically – our ‘one size fits all’ second-person pronoun you can be singular or plural in most varieties, but Bislama has no less than four! Yu refers to thee (singular), yutufala refers to ‘you two’, yutrifala refers to ‘you three’, and yufala is ‘you all’ – hence yielding singular, dual, trial, and plural forms.

Sorry to go on at length - just thought all y’all might be interested in some of that.

Posted By: Zed Re: We (long post warning) - 07/24/03 11:56 PM
Maverick I did find it interesting (I'm not "The Rippling Linguist" for nothing! she cross threaded) But the more complex forms in other languages have their confusions as well. In Spanish you can be singular-informal or formal or plural-informal or formal. But the formal versions are the same as he/she and they.
There is a joke about a detective reporting to the client that the suspect spent the evening at su casa (his house) drinking sus cervesas (his beer) eating sus comidas (his food) and making love to su esposa (his wife). The client was satisfied that all was well until the detective asked "puedo tutearlo?" (may I use the informal you (tu) instead of the formal version (su). The detective then repeated his report that the subject spent the evening at "tu casa" (your house) drinking "tus cervesas" (your beer). etc.
Re-reading this I realize that it was funnier in Spanish because you don't see it coming. And also because after spending 20 minutes translating a half page joke you darn well insist on finding it funny.

Posted By: JohnHawaii Re: yous - 07/25/03 12:05 AM
The Japanese language makes a distinction between singular "you" and plural "you" by adding the suffix "tachi"
(i.e., "you" (singular) = "anata"; "you" (plural) = "anatatachi")
Similarly, Chinese tacks on the suffix "min" to make the singular "you" a plural (i.e., "you" (singular) = "ni"; "you" (plural) = "nimin"
(apologies for romanization)
Back to the original question: "Is there any language that differentiates between an inclusive "we" (you and I) and an exclusive "we" (third parties and I)?"
The Japanese who wanted to indicate "you and I" would say
"watashitachi futari" (the two of us, and no one else).


Posted By: Capfka Re: We (long post warning) - 07/25/03 05:49 AM
Just to spark off what Mav has written, one of the guys I work with is from Cumbria, and uses "thou" and "thee" from time to time, but not all the time. The first time I heard this, it pulled me up short as you might imagine. But it appears not to be an affectation. I don't know him well enough to start asking questions, but I'd like to.

Posted By: Faldage Re: We (long post warning) - 07/25/03 10:06 AM
Lovely précis of the history of the English language, mav. Redclaw's question, however, was about an exclusive vs. inclusive we. The original mention of singular vs. plural you was merely for reference.

There was, in OE, a distinction made between dual and plural 1st person pronouns, wit and we respectively, in the nominative case. As far as I know there was no distinction in either of those between including and excluding the hearer.

Posted By: maahey Re: We (long post warning) - 07/25/03 11:30 AM
I wasn't very sure at first, but I now have it on authority (my mum) that Tamil does make this distinction.

Num-buh - inclusive 'we'
Naan-guh - exclusive 'we'

Hello and welcome, redclaw. Enjoyed reading your post, mav; thanks!




Posted By: wow Re: We (long post warning) - 07/26/03 11:48 AM
I don't know him well enough to start asking questions, but I'd like to.
Just introduce him to the Board and point him in the direction of this thread!
Easy peasy.


Posted By: maverick Re: We (long post warning) - 07/26/03 09:04 PM
exclusive vs. inclusive we.

No contest around here, me ol pit nicker ~ we're exclusively inclusive :)

© Wordsmith.org