Is there a language, that has both a non-inclusive and inclusive

you mean like "we" and "you"?

i dont get what you mean

>>67766060
It doesn't make sense.

There are only three persons and a singular and plural for each one of them.
That's how reality works.

>>67766060
Tagalog does. Tayo vs. kami. The general concept in linguistics is called "clusivity."

>>67766060
>>67766285 has an answer for you. There's also been some argument for the distinction in Portuguese. The normal 1P plural pronoun is 'nós', but informally, especially in Brazil, 'a gente' (lit. 'the people') is also used to mean 'we'. The support for it being an exclusive 'we' lies in how some speakers prefer 'a gente' in a situation like discussing local customs or habits with someone from another region, in a sense of 'this is the way _we_ do things around here', where the addressee is understood to not be 'from around here', and thus understood to not take part in that custom.

>>67766083
>>67766116
>>67766236
There are 3 Persons: A, B and C

When Person A speaks to B and refers to A&B, she says "we". And if A refers to A&C she says "we", too.

There is no way for B to know, if she is included in A's "we" or not

>>67766434
its all about context

>>67766529
That's not the point, though. The important bit here is that in some languages, it's _not_ about context—you can have one word that means "we" in the sense of "me, you, and possibly others" and another word that means "me, others, but not you".

In theory, I can think of three different possible "we" words: 1) me and you and nobody else, 2) me and you and other people, 3) me and other people but not you.

>>67766083
also, it would be more like "they" and "you", just that it would also include the speaker

>>67766285
> clusivity
thank you, this was the word I was looking for.

Apparently chinese is the only "better known" language, that does this. Cherokee also does this, and they also separate between 2 and more persons:
me+you = inega
me+someone else = osdega
me + more people = otsega
me+you+more people = idega

Chinese has 我们 which is a general we like English and 咱们 which refers to only two people. The speaker and the listener

lojban

>>67766060
Hawaiian and Maori both have inclusive/exclusive we.

It's something like:

"We are eating." [implying the person being told this is not] vs. "We are eating." [including the person being told this]

>>67766434
I get it.
Yes, in portuguese you can say "nós outros" instead of "nós" to exclude the person you're talking to.

>>67766060
Yes, french "on" can be whatever you want; it can mean: you, me, they, we, muhammad

>>67766876
In that case, in French too we say «nous autres» by opposition to «vous autres».

>>67766434
In russian you may say: "We with you" to specify that.

>>67766954
No, because «on» refers to wathever. This guy wants some words that really/directly distincts the differents persons.

>>67767012
oh well not my fault, i don't speak nazi

>>67766661
I was about to say this

mi'o (you and me)
mi'a (me and other people)
ma'a (me, you, and other people)
do'o (you and other people)

>>67766876
>>67766962
In Spanish nosotros is the regular pronoun for we

>>67767074
Yeah, vosotros too, and that's probably a popular thing that turned into a rule, like "vossa mercê" or "você" instead of "tu" in brazilian portuguese.

>>67766999
>>67766962
I haven't thought of that;

Does that work in english and german, too?

>>67767212
That's literally "we others" or "wir anderen".
Does this work? I don't know.

File: IMG_6955.jpg (26KB, 183x276px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 183x276px

>>67766060
In my native Cree language we have
Niyanân
And
Kiyanâw

Niyanân is inclusive, which means when you're talking to your friend and say we (niyanân) it implies he's with you in the sentence.

Kiyanâw is exclusive, which is something you'd usually say when you're talking about a story in the past about you and your friends

Those are our words for "we"

ᓂᔭᓈᓪ
Niyanân

ᑭᔭᓇᑦ
Kiyanâw

>>67766083
>>67766116
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QYlVJlmjLEc
>skip to 1:00
You'll understand

>>67766558
Actually, almost all the native languages of North America use this feature. Not just Cherokee, Germanbro
Anything else?

>>67767523
> Anything else?
No thanks.

It's kinda surprising how such a little feature can be so different in different languages.