tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 08 00:44:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

We: Inclusive?

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: We: Inclusive?
• Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:44:03 -0400 (EDT)

HdW writes:  maH -- we, inclusive or exclusive?

Unlike Atayal, which has {sami} for "we (you and I, with or without others)"
and {simu} for "we (I and others without you)," and Mandarin, which has
{wo-men) for "we (general usage including anyone)" but {zan-men} for "we (you
and I only)," etc. tlhIngan Hol appears to not be concerned with who all is
included in {maH}.  This obtains for the prefixes {ju-}, {gho-}, etc.

My feelings on the matter.  peHruS

• Prev by Date: Transitivity
• Next by Date: QapHa' De'wI'wIj
• Prev by thread: Re: Transitivity
• Next by thread: QapHa' De'wI'wIj
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level