Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f61.google.com ([209.85.215.61]:52989) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SxZId-00070O-GW; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:38 -0700 Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10sf536488laa.16 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:19 -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=ifLTKbjHs7fCV3JfPzyol04mf7QpL2j0OUn8EmzrwnI=; b=dem/qUN2V7XaaS2PKlVHS9jMFIm5AF9CPgDAhpiWlmCsQBsfJdIVNtOKyLPkZMVeRI 80OiBrtHwDHGGoqajfbWGz8G91n+O3MtQrzwFi7kcKwzq7pr6Ld8hiwHVhEWe1AzGF3c TWNe/oWAnJFsTy+3f/oLO/2xH7M0VFcbp/YVM= Received: by 10.204.153.214 with SMTP id l22mr204761bkw.3.1344067278496; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.205.119.129 with SMTP id fu1ls3970542bkc.4.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.151.213 with SMTP id d21mr801585bkw.0.1344067277407; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.151.213 with SMTP id d21mr801584bkw.0.1344067277375; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (mail-lb0-f169.google.com [209.85.217.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k7si3151359bks.2.2012.08.04.01.01.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.169; Received: by lbon3 with SMTP id n3so1102000lbo.28 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.49.100 with SMTP id t4mr1726955lbn.10.1344067276899; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.136.73 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7b5f831b-fd0b-499e-899d-80cd1b12dd44@googlegroups.com> References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com> <7b5f831b-fd0b-499e-899d-80cd1b12dd44@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 02:01:16 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban. From: Jonathan Jones 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 209.85.217.169 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554d63c9805e904c66c0c59 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --bcaec554d63c9805e904c66c0c59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > It's all based on the analysis of existing languages. > Sure, English example is not fine. > But Navajo > for > instance has the following hierarchy. > > *humans/lightning =E2=86=92 infants/big animals =E2=86=92 med-size animal= s =E2=86=92 small > animals =E2=86=92 insects =E2=86=92 natural forces =E2=86=92 inanimate ob= jects/plants =E2=86=92 abstractions > * > Therefore, lightning is somewhat za'e su'unai. > It doesn't matter what language you use for examples. My position is still the same. The less arbitrary distinctions there are, the better. And merely by the simple fact that every language splits things differently, (although I'll grant that language families tend to be tcesimsa if not mintu,) is enough evidence for me at least that it is arbitrary. I know that is human nature to classify things. We do it all the time. But not all classifications are useful or necessary. We have semantically unambiguous ways to refer to things, whether they be people, animals, objects, or what-have-you. We DON'T just have ra/ri/ru, ta/ti/tu, and va/vi/vu. We have the KOhA and VOhA, and the BY, which are more than enough in nearly any circumstance. Honestly, how would you rather refer to the mirror in your example? {ta xoinai}, or {my.}? > 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 >>> 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 seman= tic >>> 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 specifi= c >>> 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 w= ith >> "Singular They" and "ey, eir, em", and "somepony", all of which are, at >> least in my opinion, absolutely horrid and ineffectual substitutes for j= ust >> 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 vintag= e >> 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)anim= ate >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/z98Dn0wZA-cJ. > > 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=3Den. > --=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 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. --bcaec554d63c9805e904c66c0c59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <= span dir=3D"ltr"><gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
It's all based on the analysis of existing languages.
Sure, English= example is not fine.
But Navajo for instance has the following hierarchy.

humans/lightning =E2=86=92 infants/b= ig animals =E2=86=92 med-size animals =E2=86=92 small animals =E2=86=92 ins= ects =E2=86=92 natural forces =E2=86=92 inanimate objects/plants =E2=86=92 = abstractions

Therefore, lightning is somewhat za'e su'unai.

It doesn't matter what language you use for examples. My positio= n is still the same. The less arbitrary distinctions there are, the better.= And merely by the simple fact that every language splits things differentl= y, (although I'll grant that language families tend to be tcesimsa if n= ot mintu,) is enough evidence for me at least that it is arbitrary.

I know that is human nature to classify things. We do it all the time. = But not all classifications are useful or necessary.

We have semanti= cally unambiguous ways to refer to things, whether they be people, animals,= objects, or what-have-you. We DON'T just have ra/ri/ru, ta/ti/tu, and = va/vi/vu. We have the KOhA and VOhA, and the BY, which are more than enough= in nearly any circumstance.

Honestly, how would you rather refer to the mirror in your example? {ta= xoinai}, or {my.}?
=C2=A0
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 11:42:21 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Au= g 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 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= 9;s try it in Lojban.
{lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}

{my. pu tolmelbi}
=C2=A0

I'm one of those weirdos that t= hinks that the restriction of "it" to only inanimate objects is a= bad idea. It is precisely because of that evolution that we have people tr= ying to replace what "it" used to mean with "Singular They&q= uot; and "ey, eir, em", and "somepony", all of which ar= e, at least in my opinion, absolutely horrid and ineffectual substitutes fo= r just saying frakking IT.

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

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

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

On a show I watch called "= New Girl", the theme song goes "Who's that girl? It's Jes= s!" 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 dis= tinction just makes things harder. We don't need to have an "(in)a= nimate marker". If you want to be unambiguous as to what you are refer= ring to, don't use ambiguous reference.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/z98Dn0wZA-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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.



--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. 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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec554d63c9805e904c66c0c59--