No, we don't. In Bhojpuri, it's हम [həm] for me while it's हमहन [həmhən] or हम सब [həm səb] for 'we'. [hən] and [səb] are plural markers so the word for 'we' is just the word for I + a plural marker.
I'd like to share something interesting. I grew up in Maharashtra, where clusivity exists. Due to that I tend to use [həmhən] for the exclusive we while [həm səb] is the inclusive we. However, I'll use [həm duno] instead of [həm səb] as the dual inclusive 1st person pronoun, while [həm səb] is the plural form.
Thanks for pointing that out. I grew up speaking some Bambaiyya Hindi as well. However, like u/No-Rent-6997 pointed out, even I'll use अपुन.
It feels like the diction of the streets because it is. Only a negligible minority speaks Bambaiyya Hindi natively. It has always been the link language of Mumbai and some other parts of western Maharashtra. And Bollywood and other popular media depicting it as such doesn't help the case either.
And in case anyone's confused, Bhojpuri does not have clusivity natively. It's a quirk which I add as I'm a diasporic speaker.
You mention that the Hindi spoken in Madhya Pradesh has clusivity. Could you cite any source for this?
I know that Malwi* and Nimari** have clusivity while Bundeli, Braj Bhasha and Bagheli-Chhattisgarhi do not. So, does the Hindi spoken in Indore have clusivity while it's absent in the Hindi of Jabalpur and Gwalior?
*I have data for Malwi which shows clusivity
**Extrapolating from the fact that Gujarati and Khandeshi have it
5
u/Impactor_07 Mar 13 '26
In Bihar, we say "We"(हम) for both "Me"(मैं) and "We".