Inclusive and Exclusive Participation
Does "we" include the listener?
A grammatical distinction between a first-person plural that includes the addressee and one that excludes them.
- T1 · Documented
Field record pending — no linked language specimens yet.
What linguistic research records.
- T2 · Interpreted
collective identifiers rarely encode whether a caller or agent is inside the group
How Lanskrit reads the code deficit.
- T3 · Proposed
scoped identity sets
Speculative constructs — not executable code.
- T4 · Executed
Not yet compiled to a deterministic runtime.
Deterministic runtime — the graft as running machinery.
Each tier is a different kind of claim. We keep them visually distinct so a reader can never confuse a field record with a deterministic run.
Documented
What linguistic research records.
- who is inside the group referred to
- whether the listener is a participant
- delegation and ownership boundaries
Interpreted
How Lanskrit reads the code deficit.
- collective identifiers rarely encode whether a caller or agent is inside the group
- delegation loses the participation boundary
Proposed
Speculative constructs — not executable code.
- scoped identity sets
- capability grants with explicit inclusion
Executed
Deterministic runtime — the graft as running machinery.
No executable runtime yet. This capability has not been compiled to a deterministic machine.
- multi-agent ownership
- participation scope in permissions
- delegation semantics
- group accountability boundaries
- The distinction is grammatical in some languages and lexical in others; do not generalise to speakers' worldviews.
No specific languages have been linked to this capability yet.
Cited as examples of the feature, not as claims about all speakers of these languages.
Under review
Research source pending verification.
Frequently discussed candidate for a second graft. Requires trial design work.
- Record version
- 0.2
- Last reviewed
- 2026-07-21
- Controversy level
- low