Received: from mail-gg0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:59564)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKOXn8wTENCF84AFGgQaa4dI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SxXy3-0006Q7-Oe; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:11 -0700
Received: by ggke5 with SMTP id e5sf1645227ggk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version
         :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to
         :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post
         :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe
         :content-type;
        bh=d6Q+uCkrZp2638qWbND2BIv8cONwmxTw7YkUvmU4qhg=;
        b=LsSJ4B+gKfN+FkBI3l0qqvAiO0vceUM1pM4BYABix83svynZwJmYtTCDaHYwfH4iev
         h0bR4WSdrNC1MtgZJikzh0K4qjoiwkYoaUhbOH9ahp8to+ClLiJU53wiFItNktXfhy84
         oNX9jNaOnMAxEcyuyP2M9rxTWE3PIpMDgOCik=
Received: by 10.52.68.134 with SMTP id w6mr555711vdt.6.1344062160996;
        Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.147.138 with SMTP id l10ls3782524vcv.7.gmail; Fri, 03 Aug
 2012 23:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.97.102 with SMTP id dz6mr554062vdb.2.1344062160396;
        Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 23:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_397_11215227.1344062159840"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_397_11215227.1344062159840
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

*Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.*

Many if not most languages divide all predicates into levels of animacy.
English, for instance, has at least two levels. These are the pronouns for 
them
1. Animate. He/she
2. Inanimate. It

This allows quickly determine agents of most actions.
Example:
The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.
Let's try it in Lojban.
{lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}
No, too ambiguous. And I opine that counting two sumti back in order to use 
{ra} is much trickier for human brain than just understanding semantic 
roles of sumti.
Therefore, I suggest introducing a new marker reflecting animacy of any 
object. I'll use {xoi} which currently bears no official meaning.

xoi - marks preceding construct as animate
xoinai - marks preceding construct as inanimate

{lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra. i ta xoinai pu tolmelbi}

However, some languages have more levels of animacy.
The father was looking at his son. He was beautiful.
{lo patfu pu catlu lo bersa .i ta xoixime'i pu melbi}
The author of this sentence probably thinks that children are less animate 
than grown-ups. 
So we can build a scale ranging from most animate objects to inanimate.
It's only the speaker who decides what level of animacy this or that object 
has.

*Gender-specific pronouns.*
You might argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for instance 
the gender of the object described.
Let's repeat once again.

English has at least two levels. These are the pronouns for them
1. Animate. He/she
2. Inanimate. It

In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only one 
pronoun expressing inanimate objects.
There might be languages that split inanimate levels into other specific 
classes (furniture, houses, weapons).
Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks of 
natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.

*Unsettled issues.*
Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest level of animacy 
hierarchy.
Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and abstractions. The 
issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that one might imagine remains 
unsettled.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/xCz0FxKdifoJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


------=_Part_397_11215227.1344062159840
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><b>Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.</b></div><div><br></=
div><div>Many if not most languages divide all predicates into levels of an=
imacy.</div><div>English, for instance, has at least two levels. These are =
the pronouns for them</div><div>1. Animate. He/she</div><div>2. Inanimate. =
It</div><div><br></div><div>This allows quickly determine agents of most ac=
tions.</div><div>Example:</div><div>The woman was looking at the mirror. It=
 was ugly.</div><div>Let's try it in Lojban.</div><div>{lo ninmu pu ca'o ca=
tlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}</div><div>No, too ambiguous. And I opine th=
at counting two sumti back in order to use {ra} is much trickier for human =
brain than just understanding semantic roles of sumti.</div><div>Therefore,=
 I suggest introducing a new marker reflecting animacy of any object. I'll =
use {xoi} which currently bears no official meaning.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>xoi - marks preceding construct as animate</div><div>xoinai - marks prec=
eding construct as inanimate</div><div><br></div><div>{lo ninmu pu ca'o cat=
lu lo minra. i ta xoinai pu tolmelbi}</div><div><br></div><div>However, som=
e languages have more levels of animacy.</div><div>The father was looking a=
t his son. He was beautiful.</div><div>{lo patfu pu catlu lo bersa .i ta xo=
ixime'i pu melbi}</div><div>The author of this sentence probably thinks tha=
t children are less animate than grown-ups.&nbsp;</div><div>So we can build=
 a scale ranging from most animate objects to inanimate.</div><div>It's onl=
y the speaker who decides what level of animacy this or that object has.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div><b>Gender-specific pronouns.</b></div><div>You might=
 argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for instance the gender=
 of the object described.</div><div>Let's repeat once again.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>English has at least two levels. These are the pronouns for them=
</div><div>1. Animate. He/she</div><div>2. Inanimate. It</div><div><br></di=
v><div>In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only one=
 pronoun expressing inanimate objects.</div><div>There might be languages t=
hat split inanimate levels into other specific classes (furniture, houses, =
weapons).</div><div>Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all thos=
e quirks of natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.</div><div><br></div><div><b>U=
nsettled issues.</b></div><div>Some languages have "abstractions" in their =
lowest level of animacy hierarchy.</div><div>Lojban is pretty strict when d=
ealing with objects and abstractions. The issue with the scale "su'unai - s=
u'u" that one might imagine remains unsettled.</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/xCz0FxKdifoJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/xC=
z0FxKdifoJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_397_11215227.1344062159840--