From jexOm@free.fr Wed Feb 19 16:08:57 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from postfix3-1.free.fr ([213.228.0.44]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18leGm-0002Yv-00 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:08:56 -0800 Received: from free.fr (nas-cbv-4-62-147-140-242.dial.proxad.net [62.147.140.242]) by postfix3-1.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E1FC098 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:08:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:44:57 +0100 Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: ti, ta, tu for people? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: jexOm. To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030219143046.033937d0@pop.east.cox.net> Message-Id: <27115DBC-4464-11D7-839F-003065E00134@free.fr> X-archive-position: 159 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jexOm@free.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Le mercredi, 19 f=E9v 2003, =E0 20:35 Europe/Paris, Robert LeChevalier a=20= =E9crit : > At 12:44 PM 2/19/03 +0100, jexOm. wrote: >> "3. Demonstrative pro-sumti: the ti-series >> The following cmavo are discussed in this section: >> ti KOhA ti-series this here, a nearby object >> ta KOhA ti-series that there, a medium-distant object >> tu KOhA ti-series that yonder, a far-distant object" >> >> So, to me Philip's question is understandable, since a person is not=20= >> an "object". > > The dichotomy between "person" and "object" is politics, not language. I understand the point, I just wanted to show that Philip's question=20 was justified. Try to say "what's that?" when designing a person, he/she won't be=20 happy... So the discussion was worth having, and now we know the answer. [BTW, linguistics _is_ politics.] > Here is the definition of object in Merriam-Webster: > > Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin objectum, from Latin,=20= > neuter of objectus, past participle of obicere to throw in the way,=20 > present, hinder, from ob- in the way + jacere to throw > [...] > > There is no definition of "object" therein that excludes people. True. You can take a person and throw _it_ away :-) "Object" has several definitions. In some, it is in opposition with=20 subject. Treating a human being like an object is negative enough to=20 prove that in some cases (most of cases in common usage), it is=20 incorrect to use the term "object" to refer to human beings, even=20 animals or plants. Never played to guess a word chosen by somebody=20 else? The questions usually are: - is it an object? - no. - is it a plant? - no. - is it an animal? - no. - is it a person? - yes. In English (in French, too), there are two different words: "something"=20= (quelque chose) and "somebody" (quelqu'un), like "what" (quoi) and=20 "who" (qui). Etc. That's why in fact I had asked myself the same question as Philip. And thank you for the answer! I'll take care of that when explaining=20 {titatu}. J=E9r=F4me.