Datapoint Diu Indo-Portuguese/Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent personal pronouns

Whenever communicative context calls for clarification of the inclusion of the addressee in 1pl pronominal reference, speakers of Diu Indo-Portuguese have the option to postpose doy 'two' to nɔs 'we'. It may well be that, if ever this language develops an inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1pl pronouns, this sequence will grammaticalize and take up the function of an inclusive pronoun. However, it seems inappropriate to describe it in those terms at present, for two main reasons:

a) the sequence does not betray any degree of integration, i.e. the constituents of the sequence nɔs doy do not display any phonological reduction when compared to their isolated occurrences;

b) nɔs doy is not obligatorily (or even regularly) selected whenever the addressee is subsumed under 1sg pronominal reference.

Whereas all recorded occurrences of this sequence are intended to include the addressee, it remains to be ascertained whether or not it is blocked from exclusive contexts.

Values

No inclusive/exclusive distinction

Example 39-30:
Ali nɔs uki tiŋ brĩka?
Ali
there
nɔs
1pl
uki
what
t-iŋ
ipfv-pst
brĩk-a?
play-inf
What were we playing there?

Source: Cardoso 2004-2008

Example 39-33:
Nɔs doy a faze race.
Nɔs
1pl
doy
two
a
irr.npst
faz-e
make-inf
<race>.
race
The two of us will race.

Source: Cardoso 2009: 206

Example 39-34:
Dəpəy nɔs ɔn foy? ɔn foy dəpəy nɔs, nɔs doy?
Dəpəy
then
nɔs
1pl
ɔn
where
foy?
go.pst
ɔn
where
foy
go.pst
dəpəy
then
nɔs,
1pl
nɔs
1pl
doy?
two
And then where did we go? Where did we go then, the two of us?

Source: Cardoso 2004-2008

Confidence:
Certain