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.
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).
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).
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).