From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Sep 22 16:40:57 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EIagT-0002je-OO for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:57 -0700 Received: from bay102-f10.bay102.hotmail.com ([64.4.61.20] helo=hotmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EIagR-0002jX-1e for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:57 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:54 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 64.4.61.208 by by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:40:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.4.61.208] X-Originating-Email: [mugglesnsquibs@msn.com] X-Sender: mugglesnsquibs@msn.com In-Reply-To: <200509190452.AAA18658@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> From: "Robert Griffin" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: gendered and gender-neutral language Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:40:53 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2005 23:40:54.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[129669B0:01C5BFCF] X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-archive-position: 2262 X-Approved-By: mugglesnsquibs@msn.com 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: mugglesnsquibs@msn.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Coi rodoi (which brings up the question, I used to see 'coi redoi', but now only see 'coi rodo'. Which is correct?) Threre are a number of languages which are grammatically neutral as regards pronouns, retaining gender differentiation in either noun and verb formation (Hindi and Armenian do this) or in lexical choice (Japanese does this). In these languages, the minor 'aid' given by masculine and feminine pronouns would help in selecting the appropriate grammatical form or the appropriate word. On the other hand, since lojban maintains NO grammatical or lexical gender differences, excepting 'patfu' and 'mamta', the gender of a subject of conversation is almost always only important if it plays a part in what is being discussed. For those who consider that gender-neutral grammar will erase sexism, I submit China, for which there is NOW a word meaning 'she', which is sounds EXACTLY like the word 'he', resulting in odd speech patterns among Chinese students of English (e.g. 'He drove her car to the store' -- ko'a sazri klama le zarci fu le ko'a karce ). In spite of a lack of grammatical genderism, China does not lack sexism. On the other hand, if we do indeed hope to leave sexism in our past, then having a gender neutral language should aid in our endeavor. Be Well, mu'o mi'e bobgrif. Bob Griffin >From: der Mouse > > > Instead of merely providing gender-neutral options so that we don't > > default to sexist usages, Lojban seems to make you work hard to > > provide the casual, ubiquitous gender awareness we are used to. > >And good for it, in my opinion. > >I don't *like* that ubiquitous gender/sex awareness. Why should it be >any more relevant, when discussing (say) a shopkeeper from whom I >bought something today, that the shopkeeper is a man, but not that, >say, the shopkeeper is Oriental, or short, or any of the equally >obvious categories said shopkeeper might fit into? Yet English, like >most natural languages, forces me to drag one of them in, willy-nilly, >and makes me work to drag any of the others in. I much prefer the >Lojban way, making you say what you mean, but not requiring you to say >more than you mean - and not making it trivial to say "the person I was >speaking of (who happens to be a man)" and clumsy to say "the person I >was speaking of (who happens to be short)". > >Douglas Hofstatder, I think it was, wrote a lovely little piece: "A >Person Paper on Purity in Language", which appeared in Metamagical >Themas. See www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html, >which brings this linguistic bias into delightful focus. >