<p>After thinking about this a bit, I realised that you are basically describing a <em>minimal–augmented</em> pronoun system. In a minimal–augmented system, each person comes in two pronominal forms: <em>minimal</em>, which is singlar for 1, 2 and 3, but dual for 1+2; and <em>augmented</em>, which is more than minimal. Slotting your pronominal table into this system gives the following:</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Minimal</th>
<th>Augmented</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1+3+3+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1+2</td>
<td>1+2+3+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>2+2+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>3+3+…</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>But now that I look at this table, I notice something odd. See, the augmented form of 3 is many 3s, and the augmented form of 2 is many 2s. But the augmented form of 1 refers to many 3s! This is odd, especially considering that a first person plural pronoun is usually 1+1+… — no need to drag random third persons into it. Similarly, your augmented 1+2 pronoun should be many first and second persons, without third persons. Thus, your 1+2+2+… form should be the <em>augmented 1+2</em> pronoun:</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Minimal</th>
<th>Augmented</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1+1+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1+2</td>
<td>1+2+1+2+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>2+2+…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>3+3+…</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>Or, if you prefer, you can shoehorn it into a more ‘traditional’ form and call it a first person inclusive plural:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dnXLc.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dnXLc.png" alt="table of minimal/augmented pronouns" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-26T04:17:27.483Z
2021-08-26T04:17:27.483Z
bradrn
<p>Have you considered agglutinative pronouns? At least initially, in the precursor language, henceforth &quot;Old Simplicius&quot;. Start with three pronouns that are strictly 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person with a singular and plural form. Then to specify &quot;me and you&quot; just straight up say &quot;me and you&quot;, and so on for the other combinations. As Old Simplicius evolves into Middle Simplicius, these get ossified into particular forms - so &quot;me and you&quot; is always &quot;meyou&quot; rather than &quot;youme&quot; or whichever way you go, it's up to you. Then as Middle becomes Modern, they get smushed up by sound changes until they look as little or as much like each other as you please.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-26T02:35:57.663Z
2023-06-26T02:35:57.663Z
No Name
<p>I am working on the pronoun system for my conlang.<br/>
The table below illustrates what I have ended up with so far.<br/><br/>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/FFef7.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/FFef7.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br/><br/>
I am looking for suggestions on how - if even needed - to implement a <em>plural</em> form that <em>only</em> includes the <em>first</em> and <em>second</em> person, but <em>not</em> the <em>third</em> (1+2+2+...).<br/>
Should I replace the <em>dual</em> form and let it be up to the context, wether its 1+2 or 1+2+2+...<br/>
Or should I implement a total new form for it and how would I name it then?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-14T22:20:00.913Z
You can do whatever you want. Languages collapse distinctions in lots of various ways. For example, English used to have separate singular and plural second person pronouns (as well as different case forms), now it doesn't, but in some informal English varieties it does again. So just do whatever you want.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-15T02:56:25.900Z
Is your language spoken by a fictional group or just for fun?
Vir
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-15T08:55:16.487Z
It's not related to any. I treat mine as an intelectual projekt - so rather just for fun, yes.
Simplicius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-15T15:27:40.377Z
In that case, especially, you should do what appeals to you. What are your thoughts about one way or the other?
Vir
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-16T02:38:16.920Z
Interesting question! This seems like a reasonable thing to do, but I can’t find a language which does it. I’m pretty certain at least that it wouldn’t fit into the ‘dual’ paradigm — my understanding is that first person dual is pretty straightforwardly two people, me and you. Perhaps you’re best off giving it an entirely new place in the paradigm?
bradrn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-16T15:54:22.343Z
Your right probably, I might call it *1. Exclusive* and name 1+3+3 *2. Exclusive*. @bradrn
Simplicius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-21T10:10:23.377Z
See also this question on [linguistics.se] (of course, this one is on natlangs, in a conlang you can do things no known natlang provides): https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/28316/inclusive-pronouns-can-there-be-more-than-one
Sir Cornflakes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T07:02:09.403Z
Arguably you can't have 2+2, it's always 2+3, because each hearer understands *you-plural* to mean *me and others*.
Anton Sherwood
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-05T01:12:18.220Z
I think this question should be closed. It's not so much a question of how to do this or even whether it's possible, as you literally answer yourself (i.e. just define a pronoun that combines first person singular and 2nd person plural: 1+2+2+2...). This is a question of *terminology*: how to call such a pronoun.
Circeus
<conlang-creation><number>
Inventing A Plural Form For First And Second Person
# Inventing A Plural Form For First And Second Person

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-04-14)

I am working on the pronoun system for my conlang.  
The table below illustrates what I have ended up with so far.  
  
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/FFef7.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/FFef7.png)  
  
I am looking for suggestions on how - if even needed - to implement a *plural* form that *only* includes the *first* and *second* person, but *not* the *third* (1+2+2+...).  
Should I replace the *dual* form and let it be up to the context, wether its 1+2 or 1+2+2+...  
Or should I implement a total new form for it and how would I name it then?

**Tags:** conlang-creation, number
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You can do whatever you want. Languages collapse distinctions in lots of various ways. For example, English used to have separate singular and plural second person pronouns (as well as different case forms), now it doesn't, but in some informal English varieties it does again. So just do whatever you want.  
> **username_2**: Is your language spoken by a fictional group or just for fun?  
> **username_0**: It's not related to any. I treat mine as an intelectual projekt - so rather just for fun, yes.  
> **username_2**: In that case, especially, you should do what appeals to you. What are your thoughts about one way or the other?  
> **username_3**: Interesting question! This seems like a reasonable thing to do, but I can’t find a language which does it. I’m pretty certain at least that it wouldn’t fit into the ‘dual’ paradigm — my understanding is that first person dual is pretty straightforwardly two people, me and you. Perhaps you’re best off giving it an entirely new place in the paradigm?  
> **username_0**: Your right probably, I might call it *1. Exclusive* and name 1+3+3 *2. Exclusive*. @bradrn  
> **username_4**: See also this question on [linguistics.se] (of course, this one is on natlangs, in a conlang you can do things no known natlang provides): https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/28316/inclusive-pronouns-can-there-be-more-than-one  
> **username_5**: Arguably you can't have 2+2, it's always 2+3, because each hearer understands *you-plural* to mean *me and others*.  
> **username_6**: I think this question should be closed. It's not so much a question of how to do this or even whether it's possible, as you literally answer yourself (i.e. just define a pronoun that combines first person singular and 2nd person plural: 1+2+2+2...). This is a question of *terminology*: how to call such a pronoun.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-08-26. Score: 4

After thinking about this a bit, I realised that you are basically describing a *minimal–augmented* pronoun system. In a minimal–augmented system, each person comes in two pronominal forms: *minimal*, which is singlar for 1, 2 and 3, but dual for 1+2; and *augmented*, which is more than minimal. Slotting your pronominal table into this system gives the following:

| Minimal | Augmented |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | 1+3+3+… |
| 1+2 | 1+2+3+… |
| 2 | 2+2+… |
| 3 | 3+3+… |

But now that I look at this table, I notice something odd. See, the augmented form of 3 is many 3s, and the augmented form of 2 is many 2s. But the augmented form of 1 refers to many 3s! This is odd, especially considering that a first person plural pronoun is usually 1+1+… — no need to drag random third persons into it. Similarly, your augmented 1+2 pronoun should be many first and second persons, without third persons. Thus, your 1+2+2+… form should be the *augmented 1+2* pronoun:

| Minimal | Augmented |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | 1+1+… |
| 1+2 | 1+2+1+2+… |
| 2 | 2+2+… |
| 3 | 3+3+… |

Or, if you prefer, you can shoehorn it into a more ‘traditional’ form and call it a first person inclusive plural:

[![table of minimal/augmented pronouns](https://i.sstatic.net/dnXLc.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/dnXLc.png)


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2023-06-26. Score: 3

Have you considered agglutinative pronouns? At least initially, in the precursor language, henceforth "Old Simplicius". Start with three pronouns that are strictly 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person with a singular and plural form. Then to specify "me and you" just straight up say "me and you", and so on for the other combinations. As Old Simplicius evolves into Middle Simplicius, these get ossified into particular forms - so "me and you" is always "meyou" rather than "youme" or whichever way you go, it's up to you. Then as Middle becomes Modern, they get smushed up by sound changes until they look as little or as much like each other as you please.


---

