On Sat, Au= g 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:

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/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.

I= t doesn't matter what language you use for examples. My position is still t= he 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 en= ough 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/v= i/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.}?

Honestly, we both spea= k European languages. That's why our opinion means nothing as we can't remo= ve our cultural bias.

We need someone from another culture (like = Navajo speaker).

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'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/-/z98Dn0wZA-cJ.

=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.

--
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/-/SZ= LAWPmIc_8J.
=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_679_29481117.1344080655843--