Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Food for thought. I just found and skimmed an academic treatment of person. In it the author discusses seven meta-persons. Where 1 represents the speaker or plural speakers, 2 represents the listener or plural listeners, and 3 represents another or others, the seven meta-persons are as follows:
1
1+2
1+3
1+2+3
2
2+3
3
The author asserts that no attested languge makes more than four distinctions based on person alone. This list causes me to wonder if a language actually makes a distinction between 2nd person plurals: you people listening (only); you listening and another or others.

Your question taxes my sociological knowledge beyond its limits. While there is plenty of evidence all over the place of the dual — and thus multiple forms of we — in older forms of most Indo-European languages, the closest language I am aware of to US and Northern European that still retains the dual and multiple forms of we is Slovene. There are still some minimal, but unquestionable vestiges in several of the Slavic languages, including Russian.

But I think your question has more to do with the multiple we based on clusivity. I don't know of any that qualify.

heathbug said:

eli_damon said:

Garry Shirts said:
Eli-damon, "Infanticide is close, but I think they treat them more like children than infants. Even though my description was closer to "infanticide" than "childrenize."

---

Hi Garry. I don't think "infanticide" is what you meant. That might have one of those senior moments you were talking about. 😉 Anyway, I see your point but "infantilize" is used to mean exactly what you are describing. I have heard talk about the infantilization of old people, women, and disabled people.

---

Besides, 'infanticide' refers to the killing (usually murdering) infants.