Adam COOPER wrote:
> Well, there's {mi}, there's {mi'a}, there's {mi'o} (speaker +
> listener/addressee), and there's {ma'a} (speaker + listener + third
> person(s)). I'm trying to think of a situation where one says "we"
> in English & cannot pin the meaning down to one of these four...
(If you have to pin the meaning of "we" down to one of these four every time, it won't be called that you have found an exact translation of "we".)
Suppose you have come to an unknown street in an unknown city, and meet a guy who tells:
- It is OUR street. Only WE can walk around here. Get away!
In this case the guy shows that not only he thinks the street belongs to him, but THERE ARE OTHER guys thinking like him (e.g. from the same local gang).
Neither {mi}, nor {mi'a}, nor {mi'o}, nor {mi'a} do express the sense which that guy puts in his English words. Because if he says, for example, {le mi'a klaji}, it won't necessarily mean "my and other guys 's street". It may also mean "my street". And so act the rest of translations suggested by Mr. COOPER.