On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <= span dir=3D"ltr"><gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 4:16:51= PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

=20 =20 =20

Am 04.08.2012 14:07, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 3:52:05 PM UTC+4,= selpa'i wrote:

Am 04.08.2012 08:35, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:

Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.<= /tt>
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= }
"ta" does not work for back-referencing.
ta -=C2=A0pro-sumti: that there; nearby demonstrative it; indicated thing/place near listener. So I showed an example where exactly that meaning was intended.
You showed an example where [ta] does not at all apply. ta requires you to be able to point at the thing. But the sentence is in the past.

=C2=A0

=C2=A0 The above sentence would most simply be expressed as either (1) or (2): (1) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i my tolmelbi =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "The woman was looking at the mirror. I= t was ugly." (2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "The woman was looking at the mirror. S= he was ugly." There is absolutely no need to use (in-)animacity or any other arbitrary hierarchy. If you have to, you can always use existing words to specify such things, By the way how would you express "x1 is animate of level x2= "? zukte. I have no idea what "level 2" is supposed to mean, but it s= ounds derogatory. I do not want to sort different species into different levels. I consider all living things equal.

Excuse me, YOU consider??? Probably I would do the same. But= it's not the opinion that others might have.

One of common r= eplies is "Lojban doesn't have the goal to emulate every language&= quot;. Probably it's true.

But why UI were imported from Amerindian languages?=C2=A0It was the sa= me process of raising expressive power.=C2=A0 I'm sure that i= f someone suggested introducing UI now they would be immediately attacked b= y purists. I disagree, because unlike your animacy tirade, UI ar= e obviously useful. cuvyjbopre do not immediately attack any proposed chang= e out of some love for "Lojban as it is now". Even the most funda= mnetalist of us knows that Lojban is not perfect, probably never will be, a= nd does need improvements and useful changes. The question we ask ourselves= for EVERY proposal is, "Is this useful? Will it make my beloved langu= age better? Do we need this, or even something like this?" And in my opinion, the answer to those questions with regard to making = a new word to distinguish between (in)animate "levels" is a profo= und NO. =C2=A0 Animacy is marked in most languages in the world. That's why even if English adopts Spivak pronoun "ey" it won= 't replace "it".

"ey" and "it" = usually refer to absolutely different objects playing distinct roles in bri= di.

"ey" is animate, usually an agent. "it" = is usually not an agent. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 but you don't ha= ve to invent new cmavo. 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=C2=A0 = = 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. Yes. If you absolutely have to, you can specify gender/sex through various techniques, but forcing the speaker to always do so No. I'm not forcing. Everything must be optional.=C2=A0 would imply that sex/gender is of primary importance, which in turn would potentially support a sexist world-view. If one is not able to talk about something without knowing its gender or sex, then that is a definite short-coming of the language. Sure.=C2=A0 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'una= i - su'u" that one might imagine remains unsettled. You either have a NU or you don't. What scale are you imagining? Look at the list of the levels of animacy in Navajo. The list is: humans/lightning =E2=86=92 infants/big ani= mals =E2=86=92 med-size animals =E2=86=92 small animals =E2=86=92 insect= s =E2=86=92 natural forces =E2=86=92 inanimate objects/plants =E2=86=92 abstractions You can sort all of them into either NU or not-NU. All the animals including humans are objects. Objects are obviously objects too. Natural forces can be either, depending on how you express them. lo lindi=C2=A0 vs lo nu lindi. And finally, abstraction= s are clearly NU.