|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 171 |
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
exclusive vs. inclusive we.
No contest around here, me ol pit nicker ~ we're exclusively inclusive :)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,351
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
813
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
