<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>This is an interesting one. It has some good information about
clusivity in Klingon. <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On 5/22/2020 5:35 AM, De'vID wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmPx0PNGmWPOD-rh+vAwME6SXDo0+=wHxY6CrYpQgMav6w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">{maH} means "we" — that is, "you (singular or
plural) and I" and also "he/she/they and I" and also "you
(singular or plural) and he/she/they and I."</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>maH</b> is confirmed to lack clusivity.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmPx0PNGmWPOD-rh+vAwME6SXDo0+=wHxY6CrYpQgMav6w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"> When the "we/us" prefixes are used,
this sometimes gets clarified:<br>
<div><br>
{pI-} "we-you (singular)" and {re-} "we-you (plural)": "we"
means only "he/she/they and I," and none of the other "we"
options<br>
{ju-} "you (singular)-us" and {che-} "you (plural)-us": "us"
means only "him/her/them and me," and none of the other
options<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>pI-</b> and <b>re-</b> agree with exclusive <i>we</i>
subjects. They can't agree with inclusive <i>we </i>subjects
because the second person is the object.<br>
</p>
<p><b>ju-</b> and <b>che-</b> agree with exclusive <i>we</i>
objects. They can't agree with inclusive <i>we </i>objects
because the second person is the subject.</p>
<p>Basically, a first- or second-person pronoun cannot be both
subject and object. You cannot say <b>jIH SoH je relegh jIH SoH
je</b><i> you and I see you and me.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmPx0PNGmWPOD-rh+vAwME6SXDo0+=wHxY6CrYpQgMav6w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>But not always:<br>
<br>
{ma-} "we (no object)": "we" can mean any of the options<br>
{wI-} "we-him/her/it" and {DI-} "we-them": "we" can mean any
of the options (though any third persons included in the
subject are different folks from those in the object)<br>
{nu-} "he/she/it/they-us": "us" can mean any of the options
(with the same third third-person restriction cited for
{wI-} and {DI-})<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>ma-, wI-, DI-</b> do not distinguish clusivity in the subjects
they agree with.</p>
<p><b>nu-</b> does not distinguish clusivity in the object it agrees
with.</p>
<p>Since there is no duplication of the same first- or second-person
pronoun in both subject and object, there is no clusivity.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmPx0PNGmWPOD-rh+vAwME6SXDo0+=wHxY6CrYpQgMav6w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Maltz frowned and growled when I suggested {SuvwI' nulegh
HoD} and similar constructions. I guess this is one of those
places where full pronouns really ought to be used.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Music to my ears. I hate it when people try tricks like this.
Prefixes agree with the person of the subject and object; they
aren't the pronouns themselves.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>