Received: from mail-we0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:59292) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SxjwM-0003h9-8n; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:27 -0700 Received: by weyu3 with SMTP id u3sf697121wey.16 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:02 -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=1CMmDbrfn30H/A2UESoRG8lsYEP3axmqUfTcTQ+/otE=; b=3setAZbh21EDGU/FymqNFIZejGAgXKCqhByYbuFc3eWkULrtUZu/5jVsM0til4ZoWl u3MdVLOzMFtBIaJSbnxY2atw4OkFMDux/YPJaeNVLzbbCYiN9av9IWyZetyc2zqRPfVx 1MK3Dz4J21gnK2QQKHlX3b6k0MdvfFG9bv+VQ= Received: by 10.204.128.199 with SMTP id l7mr215158bks.0.1344108181803; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.157.26 with SMTP id z26ls4201456bkw.1.gmail; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.139.2 with SMTP id iu2mr1042697bkc.7.1344108180637; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.139.2 with SMTP id iu2mr1042696bkc.7.1344108180606; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j4si3520091bkj.3.2012.08.04.12.23.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.176; Received: by lboj14 with SMTP id j14so2485714lbo.35 for ; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.173 with SMTP id gn13mr5553793lab.20.1344108180145; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.136.73 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Aug 2012 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <40e62121-2790-4efb-9018-7e7f868679cb@googlegroups.com> References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com> <7b5f831b-fd0b-499e-899d-80cd1b12dd44@googlegroups.com> <40e62121-2790-4efb-9018-7e7f868679cb@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 13:23:00 -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 209.85.217.176 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=f46d040714c59e07d004c675922b X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d040714c59e07d004c675922b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 12:01:16 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < >> 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/big animals =E2=86=92 med-size anim= als =E2=86=92 small >>> animals =E2=86=92 insects =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 position is >> still the same. The less arbitrary distinctions there are, the better. A= nd >> 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 b= e >> 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.}? >> > Honestly, we both speak European languages. That's why our opinion means > nothing as we can't remove our cultural bias. > We need someone from another culture (like Navajo speaker). > Well, I would rather refer to it with {my.}, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I speak English, and everything to do with the fact that it's 2 syllables and 6 characters shorter. Like most humans, I'm lazy in my speech, and I prefer shorter. > 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 pronoun= s >>>>> 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 inanimat= e. >>>>> 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 rema= ins >>>>> 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, a= t >>>> 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)an= imate >>>> 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 . >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/-/SZLAWPmIc_8J. > > 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. --f46d040714c59e07d004c675922b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <= span dir=3D"ltr"><gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 12:01:16 PM UTC+4, aionys wro= te:
On Sa= t, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <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.}?
We need someone from another culture (like Navajo speaker).

Well, I would rather refer to it with {my.}, and it has no= thing to do with the fact that I speak English, and everything to do with t= he fact that it's 2 syllables and 6 characters shorter. Like most human= s, I'm lazy in my speech, and I prefer shorter.
=C2=A0
<= div>
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 )

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@goo= glegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/grou= p/lojban?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 &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/SZLAWPmIc_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/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.
--f46d040714c59e07d004c675922b--