Received: from mail-we0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:55063)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDfpPOABRoEj0UHEQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SxZ0J-0006u3-9b; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:46 -0700
Received: by weyu3 with SMTP id u3sf521016wey.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to: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=+LfmXZ2jH8HvCRsAlHbN7LYY1QmofIu5/4+FWqgiFsk=;
        b=tnMNGY+SvaBesSOcMWnnwAMHQ0ULsaKyVeBHAq+peKIZNIRnSJ8kYDaRQjGURBmUtS
         I4CCfrfRU/A6F9IN03zYqrM/oxxGyhCZ4RcWyo3vLuggPCH+Z7CqKQFVB8Qams6InUvW
         xa6XVcx4Nh/fXtVcl9BeH1jA4NNv5EaZ6YU/U=
Received: by 10.205.134.132 with SMTP id ic4mr177396bkc.28.1344066143494;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.143.140 with SMTP id v12ls3972997bku.6.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug
 2012 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.129.81 with SMTP id n17mr791525bks.3.1344066142358;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.129.81 with SMTP id n17mr791524bks.3.1344066142316;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q3si3141896bkv.1.2012.08.04.00.42.22
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.182;
Received: by lbbgm13 with SMTP id gm13so2059122lbb.13
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.49.100 with SMTP id t4mr1707853lbn.10.1344066141862; Sat,
 04 Aug 2012 00:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.136.73 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com>
References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:42:21 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj08=SaFG3+OjrrfVmQ7K+UrFMSz+AAF5q2MOpwhf9mhhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=eyeonus@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=bcaec554d63cf0ba3804c66bc82b
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

--bcaec554d63cf0ba3804c66bc82b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
<gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>wrote:

> *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}
>

{my. 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.
>
> I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that the restriction of "it" to only
inanimate objects is a bad idea. It is precisely because of that evolution
that we have people trying to replace what "it" used to mean with "Singular
They" and "ey, eir, em", and "somepony", all of which are, at least in my
opinion, absolutely horrid and ineffectual substitutes for just saying
frakking IT.

Further, we don't actually have that distinction. It's really more of a
very fuzzy line.

The celebration-of-a-new-birth balloons/cards/etc. all say "It's a boy!"
and "It's a girl".

We call our ships, cars, motorcycles, planes, ..., "she". ("Oh, a vintage
1950 Thunderbird?!" "Yeah, the old girl's still a beauty, ain't she?")

On a show I watch called "New Girl", the theme song goes "Who's that girl?
It's Jess!" Not "Their Jess!", not even "She's Jess!".

Arguably any human knows the difference between the animate and the
inanimate, and from what I've seen, words that explicitly provide that
distinction just makes things harder. We don't need to have an "(in)animate
marker". If you want to be unambiguous as to what you are referring to,
don't use ambiguous reference.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
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.


--bcaec554d63cf0ba3804c66bc82b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Gleki A=
rxokuna <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com"=
 target=3D"_blank">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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 actions.</div><div>Example:</=
div><div>The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.</div><div>Let&#3=
9;s try it in Lojban.</div>
<div>{lo ninmu pu ca&#39;o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}</div></blockqu=
ote><div><br>{my. pu tolmelbi}<br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><=
div>
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 rol=
es of sumti.</div><div>Therefore, I suggest introducing a new marker reflec=
ting animacy of any object. I&#39;ll use {xoi} which currently bears no off=
icial meaning.</div>
<div><br></div><div>xoi - marks preceding construct as animate</div><div>xo=
inai - marks preceding construct as inanimate</div><div><br></div><div>{lo =
ninmu pu ca&#39;o catlu lo minra. i ta xoinai pu tolmelbi}</div><div><br>
</div><div>However, some languages have more levels of animacy.</div><div>T=
he father was looking at his son. He was beautiful.</div><div>{lo patfu pu =
catlu lo bersa .i ta xoixime&#39;i pu melbi}</div><div>The author of this s=
entence probably thinks that children are less animate than grown-ups.=A0</=
div>
<div>So we can build a scale ranging from most animate objects to inanimate=
.</div><div>It&#39;s only the speaker who decides what level of animacy thi=
s or that object has.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Gender-specific pronouns.=
</b></div>
<div>You might argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for insta=
nce the gender of the object described.</div><div>Let&#39;s repeat once aga=
in.</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></div><div=
>In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only one prono=
un expressing inanimate objects.</div><div>There might be languages that sp=
lit inanimate levels into other specific classes (furniture, houses, weapon=
s).</div>
<div>Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks of nat=
langs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Unsettled issues=
.</b></div><div>Some languages have &quot;abstractions&quot; in their lowes=
t level of animacy hierarchy.</div>
<div>Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and abstractions. Th=
e issue with the scale &quot;su&#39;unai - su&#39;u&quot; that one might im=
agine remains unsettled.</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888=
">

<p></p></font></span></blockquote></div>I&#39;m one of those weirdos that t=
hinks that the restriction of &quot;it&quot; to only inanimate objects is a=
 bad idea. It is precisely because of that evolution that we have people tr=
ying to replace what &quot;it&quot; used to mean with &quot;Singular They&q=
uot; and &quot;ey, eir, em&quot;, and &quot;somepony&quot;, all of which ar=
e, at least in my opinion, absolutely horrid and ineffectual substitutes fo=
r just saying frakking IT.<br>
<br>Further, we don&#39;t actually have that distinction. It&#39;s really m=
ore of a very fuzzy line.<br><br>The celebration-of-a-new-birth balloons/ca=
rds/etc. all say &quot;It&#39;s a boy!&quot; and &quot;It&#39;s a girl&quot=
;.<br>
<br>We call our ships, cars, motorcycles, planes, ..., &quot;she&quot;. (&q=
uot;Oh, a vintage 1950 Thunderbird?!&quot; &quot;Yeah, the old girl&#39;s s=
till a beauty, ain&#39;t she?&quot;)<br><br>On a show I watch called &quot;=
New Girl&quot;, the theme song goes &quot;Who&#39;s that girl? It&#39;s Jes=
s!&quot; Not &quot;Their Jess!&quot;, not even &quot;She&#39;s Jess!&quot;.=
<br>
<br>Arguably any human knows the difference between the animate and the ina=
nimate, and from what I&#39;ve seen, words that explicitly provide that dis=
tinction just makes things harder. We don&#39;t need to have an &quot;(in)a=
nimate marker&quot;. If you want to be unambiguous as to what you are refer=
ring to, don&#39;t use ambiguous reference.<br clear=3D"all">
<br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai ko cmima lo piln=
o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to the Dot Side! Lu=
ke, I am your father. :D )<br><br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
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 />



--bcaec554d63cf0ba3804c66bc82b--