yumi/mipela

[John Lynch]

I have read this correspondence with great interest. It would seem to me
(following David Counts) that spoeakers of Austronesian languages and of
Papuan languages which have the inclusive/exclusive distinction probably
would have no difficulty in using yumi = inclusive and mipela = exclusive.
Speakers of Papuan languages which do NOT have this disticntion, however,
would have a difficulty in learning to use it 'correctly' ... just as many
speakers of English and other languages had difficulties when learning Tok
Pisin.

It may then be that such speakers began making innovations in the use of
these forms (for example dual vs, plural, as some correspondents have
suggested). It may of course also be that different people in different
parts of the country made different innovations, as some of the conflict9ng
statements seem to suggest.

It would also be interesting to see how first-language speakers of TP use
these pronouns ... given that they (as individuals at least) have no
substrate language to influence them.

I was interested to see one correspondent refer to Miriam Meyerhoff's
documentation of this same feature in Bislama. I do not have the reference
with me here. It seems strange on the surface, since ALL Vanuatu languages
have an inclusive/exclusive disticntion, and I have never heard ni-Vanuatu
using these forms differently from what was expected. Perhaps, though, she
may be referring to first language speakers who may be making an innovation
there too. Can anyone enlighten me on what she said?

John Lynch