LINGUIST List 7.22

Fri Jan 5 1996

Qs: Inclusive/exclusive marking, Ling&the millenium, Newsgroups

Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselinemunix.emich.edu>

Directory

1. Martin Weikmann, Inclusive/exclusive marking in pronouns and Verbs
2. Brigitte Nerlich, Linguistics and the millenium
3. Fri, 05 Jan 1996 08:02:07 EST, Fri, 05 Jan 1996 08:02:07 EST

I am just working on a project about the phenomena of
inclusive/exclusive markers in morphology.

So far I just could find the following items:
Marathi (Indo-aryan, India <Maharaschtra>)
 we (inclusive): /a:p'a.n/
 we (exclusive): /a:m'hi:/

/a:p'a.n/ can also be used for the respective form (You - respective).

 (similarily there is some inclusive/exclusive opposition in
the possesives).

Baka (Ubangi/Niger-Kongo)
 we (exclusive): nganga
 we (inclusive, Plural): ngangatini (from former: nganga + te + yi:
we and you (Pl.))
 we (inclusive, Dual): ngangat'em`o (from former: nganga + te + mo:
we and you (Sg.))

Telugu (Dravidian, India,<Andhara Pradesh>):

(I know, that the concept of inclusivity/exclusivity exists in that
language, but currently i do not know the forms).


Annatom language (Melanesia):
 we two (exclusive): /aijumrau/
 we three (exclusive): /aijumtai/
 we (Plural exclusive): /aijama/
 we two (inclusive): /akaijau/
 we three (inclusive): /akataij/
 we (Plural inclusive): /akaija/

If somebody could give me some details on
 - which other languages use similar concepts (not only in the 1st
 plural, I could imagine, that some similar concept might exist for
 the second person Plural (including/excluding others, who are not
 currently listening etc.), either marked at the pronoun, the verb or
 maybe at some other word (?)...
 - how these concepts have developed in the different languages (as
 sketched out for the case of Baka)
 Also the possible case of regional influence (since Marathi and
 Telugu are neighbouring languages this may be the case there)
 - where I could find a good comprehensive article/book/discussion on
 that topic.
Any help is welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Martin Weikmann
weikmannbkfug.kfunigraz.ac.at
or
weikmanngewi.kfunigraz.ac.at

Hello everybody,

over the Christmas vacation we have been watching with our little son
the X-mas lectures on 'the planet earth', given at the Royal
Institution, London. These lectures must have given a profound sense
of satisfaction to every geologist, insofar as they depicted an image
of a science that slowly but gradually has pieced together by
observation, experiments, hypothesis testing and accidental
discoveries, a 'global theory' of the earth, how it emerged, changed,
etc. and why it is what it is today. We then asked ourselves the
queston: Could a similar series of lectures be given on something just
as important as the planet we live on, namely the 'thing' that enables
us to actually talk about it: language? And would such a series of
lectures be able to convey a similar feeling of satisfaction?

 The most important question is: After 4000 years of thinking
about language and after a century of studying the history of the
language sciences, can one say that linguistics is progressing, or
merely going round in circles, or it it regressing? What are the
criteria that woul allow us to answer these questions? How do we
sample the instances to apply these criteria? Whose judgements should
we accept as to whether the criteria fit?..... There are a host of
other sub-questions (regarding the various branches of linguistics,
etc). This is only a first sounding-out if anybody out there is
interested in discussing these questions?

Brigitte Nerlich and David Clarke
Department of Psychology,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham NG7 2RD,
UK

Phone 0115 951 5361 Ext 8341; home:0115 9287317
FAX 0115 951 5324
email: bnpsyc.nott.ac.uk

Message-Id: <v0213050fad12d3c7520f[206.119.70.69]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: The Linguist List <linguisttam2000.tamu.edu>
From: blakestiac.net (Cindy Jaycox)
Subject: Newsgroups
Status: RO

Hi everyone,

I would appreciate any information on newsgroups devoted to
linguistics. Thank you.

Cindy Jaycox