Universal #1948

Legacy number: 1948

 Number  1942
 Original  One generally unremarked fact is that 2nd person plurals never appear to make a distinction between a plurality of addressees and combinations of one or more addressees with non-ego, non-addressees, i.e., 3rd persons.
 Standardized  2nd person plurals never appear to make a distinction between a plurality of addressees and combinations of one or more addressees with non-ego, non-addressees, i.e., 3rd persons.
 Keywords  pronoun, personal pronoun, number, non-singular, 2nd person, inclusive, exclusive
 Domain  inflection
 Type  unconditional
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute
 Basis  unspecified
 Source  Greenberg 1993: 14

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
Languages having inclusive/exclusive opposition in the 2nd person, e.g. Ghomala (Benue-Congo, Niger-Kordofanian) (Wiesemann 1986: viii). ??? Abkhaz (N. Caucasian) (EF, FP).Bavarian German (Simon 2000).
Notes
Cf. a similar statement by Sokolovskaja, #1453.I believe Plank 1985 (Ordnung der Personen) makes a similar claim.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
Cf. a similar statement by Sokolovskaja, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1453"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">. I believe Plank 1985 (Ordnung der Personen) makes a similar claim.