Tibetan to Samoan: a group reference must say whether the listener belongs
The speaker’s group is not automatically the reader’s group
Mayer’s Peace Corps Samoan manual distinguishes inclusive and exclusive first-person forms: tatou includes the listener, while matou excludes the listener. A Tibetan first-person group reference therefore needs its membership established before a Samoan pronoun is chosen.
Jäschke’s historical Tibetan grammar describes first-person reference with plural additions and notes that overt plural marking can be omitted when circumstances identify number. A text may thus rely on the preceding account to establish its group. That contextual economy cannot determine whether the Samoan listener belongs unless the actual people involved have been recovered.
Two people require a separate target choice
The Samoan manual also distinguishes dual first-person forms, including ta'ua and ma'ua. The first includes the listener in a pair; the second identifies the speaker and another person while excluding the listener. Both quantity and membership are therefore relevant.
A Tibetan message written by two travelling companions to someone at home should not use the same Samoan group reference as an invitation between the two intended travellers. In both situations the speaker may refer to two people, but the reader’s participation differs. Recovering exactly two participants does not finish the translation; identifying whether one of them is the listener remains necessary.
An inherited group reference can change when a quotation begins
Jäschke’s account notes omission of third-person pronouns even with a subject change in the historical material described. This reinforces the need to follow participants across clauses rather than assign every unexpressed reference to the nearest visible name. The viewpoint of a quoted speaker must likewise be established within the passage.
When a Tibetan narrator quotes a group member, the people included in that person’s we may differ from those included in the narrator’s we. A Samoan inclusive or exclusive choice should follow the actual speech situation, not simply repeat the first target pronoun selected. The same written message can contain different audiences inside and outside its quotation.
Personal involvement in knowledge does not define inclusive membership
Garfield and de Villiers analyze Tibetan evidential distinctions involving personal knowledge and involvement. These concern a speaker’s access to information. They do not automatically establish that the addressee shared the event or belongs to the group being discussed.
A Tibetan speaker may personally know what their companions did while informing an uninvolved reader. The Samoan target can therefore require an exclusive group reference even where the source strongly signals personal knowledge. Conversely, an inclusive invitation can concern a future activity that neither person has yet experienced. Keep the dimensions separate: count the participants, identify the listener’s membership, track the quoted viewpoint, and preserve any consequential source evidence. A correct-looking first-person plural can otherwise include someone who was never part of the source event.
Language references