First Person Exclusive ( Concept )
http://purl.org/linguistics/gold/FirstPersonExclusive


Thing
      |_ Abstract
            |_ Linguistic Property
                  |_ Morphosyntactic Property
                        |_ Person Property
                              |_ First Person Exclusive


Definition:

[undefined]


Usage Notes
2009-06-04 13:28:07

In a language, there has to be a First Person Inclusive for there to be a First Person Exclusive but, theoretically at least, the opposite need not hold.


Examples
Language Code: yap First person exclusive refers to the participants referred to but not the hearer.
2009-06-04 13:28:07
Kuguguy-eew
PRF1.EXCLsee-3.DUAL
We saw it.

References:
Siewierska (2003:142)

Language Code: cdm In Chepang, a simple Future may be expressed by suffixing /-ceʔ/ to the main verb.
2009-06-04 13:28:07
ŋa-ʔigoʔ-ceʔ-na-ŋ
1.SG-AGRcall-FUT-2-1.EXCL
I will/may call you

References:
Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994:245-246) FROM Caughley (1982)

Language Code: cdm This Chepang example illustrates the use of the suffix /dhaŋ-/, in combination with tense/aspect suffixes. With the immediate future, Caughley says that the action 'is about to begin'.
2009-06-04 13:28:07
ŋa-ʔi-dhaŋyo-dhaŋ-ca-ŋʔ
1.SG-AGR-IMM.FUTlook-IMM.FUT-FUT-1.EXCL
I am about to look/I will look now.

References:
Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994:245-246) FROM Caughley (1982)

Language Code: alo Corbett refers to this language as one with a 'true' trial. That is, there is a morpheme that refers to precisely three, as opposed to some reported trials that seem to have a paucal function.
2009-06-04 13:28:07
Dumahimaaridunaʔa
housethat1.TRIAL.EXCLown.it
We three own that house.

References:
Corbett (2002:21) FROM Ladig and Ladig (1990)


PropertiesValuesDefinition

User Submitted Issues
Status: Pending need to be decomposed - Helen Aristar-Dry
2010-09-23 13:06:49

First person exclusive is not an elemental category--it needs to be decomposed into 'first person' and 'exclusive'. Ditto for 'first person inclusive.'


References:
This came up in the RELISH discussions

This concept links to the Surrey Morphology Group, which seems to support what you said above (http://www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/person.html):

The inclusive/exclusive distinction (applied typically with regard to first person) is one of the important distinctions that have been identified for the category of person. Another one is the proximate/obviative distinction (applied typically with regard to third person). While the inclusive/exclusive distinction is typically defined as expressing the inclusion of the addressee with the first person, the proximate/obviative distintion regards the degree of remoteness of the non-participant.

This gives us four independent concepts: Exclusive, Inclusive, Proximate, Obviative
-Matt 9/23