Universal #1490

Legacy number: 1490

 Number  1486
 Original  If in a language there is an opposition of the metapersons 'speaker + hearer' and 'speaker + non-participant' (i.e. inclusive vs. exclusive) in the dual, then usually there is such opposition in the plural.
 Standardized  IF there is an opposition of the metapersons 'speaker + hearer' and 'speaker + non-participant' (i.e. inclusive vs. exclusive) in the dual, THEN usually there is such opposition in the plural too.
 Formula  Incl/Excl (Du) ⇒ Incl/Excl (Pl)
 Keywords  personal pronoun, person, 1st, hearer, speaker, non-participant, inclusive, exclusive, number, dual, plural
 Domain  inflection, syntax, lexicon
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  400 world-wide distributed languages, see Sokolovskaja 1980: 98-99; Sokolovskaja surveyed systems of independent personal pronouns only.
 Source  Sokolovskaja 1980: 98, U49

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Coos (Coosan), Lhota (Baric, Sino-Tibetan) have inclusive/exclusive opposition in Dual but not in Plural (mentioned by Sokolovskaja);The same pattern is found in: Nomad (Trans-New Guinea), for details see Voorhoeve 1975: 392, Franklin 1973; Tübatulabal (Uto-Aztecan), for details see Voegelin 1935: 135, but also caveat in Counterexamples to #578; Wik-Munkan (Pama-Nyungan), for details see Godfrey 1964: 76 (EF).
Notes
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons:'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s). 2. The reverse is often not true.3. Universals ##1489 and 1490 follow from the more general statements suggested by B. Uspensky (##276, 716) (however, he does not point out any counterexamples).
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Sokolovskaja recognizes the following metapersons: 'speaker', 'hearer', 'non-participant', 'speaker + hearer(s)', 'speaker + non-participant(s)', 'hearer(s) + non-participant(s)', and 'speaker + hearer(s) + non-participant(s).

2. The reverse is often not true.

3. Universals <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1489"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0"> and <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1490"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0"> follow from the more general statements suggested by B. Uspensky (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=276"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=716"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">) (however, he does not point out any counterexamples).