Received: from mail-vb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:51368) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SxZ62-0006wW-Fm; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:48:37 -0700 Received: by vbzb23 with SMTP id b23sf1744878vbz.16 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:48:19 -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:in-reply-to:references: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=jWZoGgUtdeWjdk1VWYr853w13hlXpPII/sreR6/fzOU=; b=tDF0wJTCYMLvCwGTomSHyDeR1EJLjSTxmDNY7lwpkg1FIgFFd4d7Tm+8Hu4L52QeYL mQ6S1qTOUNreEACfonnN4zbrPRkfNWQnNa34BM6zkv8BaW704EDNRjXvJe8QMpJttRiX nFqnF+OFDlLFJYB4Uf1mjL59YwDC4tNxCaQcI= Received: by 10.52.71.7 with SMTP id q7mr546733vdu.20.1344066499699; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:48:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.100.72 with SMTP id ew8ls3820809vdb.9.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.34.9 with SMTP id v9mr568468vdi.9.1344066499024; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:48:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <7b5f831b-fd0b-499e-899d-80cd1b12dd44@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30_12523811.1344066498470" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_30_12523811.1344066498470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's all based on the analysis of existing languages. Sure, English example is not fine. But Navajo=20 for=20 instance has the following hierarchy. *humans/lightning =E2=86=92 infants/big animals =E2=86=92 med-size animals = =E2=86=92 small animals=20 =E2=86=92 insects =E2=86=92 natural forces =E2=86=92 inanimate objects/plan= ts =E2=86=92 abstractions* Therefore, lightning is somewhat za'e su'unai. On Saturday, August 4, 2012 11:42:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > > > > 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= =20 >> 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} > =20 > >> No, too ambiguous. And I opine that counting two sumti back in order to= =20 >> use {ra} is much trickier for human brain than just understanding semant= ic=20 >> roles of sumti. >> Therefore, I suggest introducing a new marker reflecting animacy of any= =20 >> 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=20 >> animate than grown-ups.=20 >> 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=20 >> object has. >> >> *Gender-specific pronouns.* >> You might argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for instanc= e=20 >> 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=20 >> pronoun expressing inanimate objects. >> There might be languages that split inanimate levels into other specific= =20 >> classes (furniture, houses, weapons). >> Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks of=20 >> natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine. >> >> *Unsettled issues.* >> Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest level of animacy=20 >> hierarchy. >> Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and abstractions. The= =20 >> issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that one might imagine remains=20 >> unsettled. >> >> I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that the restriction of "it" to onl= y=20 > inanimate objects is a bad idea. It is precisely because of that evolutio= n=20 > that we have people trying to replace what "it" used to mean with "Singul= ar=20 > They" and "ey, eir, em", and "somepony", all of which are, at least in my= =20 > opinion, absolutely horrid and ineffectual substitutes for just saying=20 > frakking IT. > > Further, we don't actually have that distinction. It's really more of a= =20 > very fuzzy line. > > The celebration-of-a-new-birth balloons/cards/etc. all say "It's a boy!"= =20 > and "It's a girl". > > We call our ships, cars, motorcycles, planes, ..., "she". ("Oh, a vintage= =20 > 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= ?=20 > It's Jess!" Not "Their Jess!", not even "She's Jess!". > > Arguably any human knows the difference between the animate and the=20 > inanimate, and from what I've seen, words that explicitly provide that=20 > distinction just makes things harder. We don't need to have an "(in)anima= te=20 > marker". If you want to be unambiguous as to what you are referring to,= =20 > don't use ambiguous reference. > > --=20 > 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 ) > > --=20 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/lo= jban/-/z98Dn0wZA-cJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. ------=_Part_30_12523811.1344066498470 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's all based on the analysis of existing languages.
Sure, English exa= mple is not fine.
But Navajo for instance has the = following hierarchy.

humans/lightning =E2=86=92 infants/big animals =E2=86= =92 med-size animals =E2=86=92 small animals =E2=86=92 insects =E2=86=92 na= tural forces =E2=86=92 inanimate objects/plants =E2=86=92 abstractions<= /p>Therefore, lightning is somewhat za'e su'unai.


On Saturday= , August 4, 2012 11:42:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:


On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 a= t 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 an= imacy.
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 rol= es of sumti.
Therefore, I suggest introducing a new marker reflec= ting animacy of any object. I'll use {xoi} which currently bears no officia= l meaning.

xoi - marks preceding construct as animate
xo= inai - 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.
T= he 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 sente= nce 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 insta= nce the gender of the object described.
Let's repeat once again.<= /div>

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

In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only one prono= un expressing inanimate objects.
There might be languages that sp= lit inanimate levels into other specific classes (furniture, houses, weapon= s).
Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks of nat= langs. {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. Th= e issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that one might imagine remains unse= ttled.

I'm one of those weirdos that think= s 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 replac= e what "it" used to mean with "Singular They" and "ey, eir, em", and "somep= ony", all of which are, at least in my opinion, absolutely horrid and ineff= ectual 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 vinta= ge 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 ina= nimate, and from what I've seen, words that explicitly provide that distinc= tion 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 b= u .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your fa= ther. :D )

--
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/-/z9= 8Dn0wZA-cJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_30_12523811.1344066498470--