In some languages, the three first-person pronouns appear to be unrelated. However, when only one of the plural pronouns is related to the describing morphosyntax a guide for field linguists pdf, it may be either one. It is not uncommon for two separate words for “I” to pluralize into derived forms having a clusivity distinction.
I”, while the singular form of the inclusive pronoun may also occur on its own, in which case it also means “I”, but with a connotation of appealing or asking for indulgence. Australia and much of America, the inclusive-exclusive distinction can be made there as well. In Tamil on the other hand, the two different pronouns have the same agreement on the verb. The lack of a suffix indicates the singular. The exclusive form is used in the singular as the normal word for “I”, but the inclusive also occurs in the singular.
Samoan its use has been described as indicating emotional involvement on the part of the speaker. In theory, clusivity of the second person should be a possible distinction, but its existence is controversial. Many other linguists take the more neutral position that it could exist but is nonetheless not currently attested. Clusivity in the second person is conceptually simple but nonetheless if it exists is extremely rare, unlike clusivity in the first. I am not addressing currently. Simon provides a deep analysis of second-person clusivity in his 2005 article.
The obviative is sometimes referred to as the “fourth person”. This rules out most European languages, for example. Clusivity is nonetheless a very common language feature overall. Some languages with more than one plural number make the clusivity distinction only in, for example, the dual, but not in the greater plural.