[lojban-beginners] Re: gendered and gender-neutral language

[Arran <arran4@arran4.homeip.net>]

Did some reading, lojban isn't on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sexist_language
Why is that?

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:40 am, Robert Griffin wrote:
> Coi rodoi
> (which brings up the question, I used to see 'coi redoi', but now only see
> 'coi rodo'. Which is correct?)
>
> Threre are a number of languages which are grammatically neutral as regards
> pronouns, retaining gender differentiation in either noun and verb
> formation (Hindi and Armenian do this) or in lexical choice (Japanese does
> this). In these languages, the minor 'aid' given by masculine and feminine
> pronouns would help in selecting the appropriate grammatical form or the
> appropriate word.  On the other hand, since lojban maintains NO grammatical
> or lexical gender differences, excepting 'patfu' and 'mamta', the gender of
> a subject of conversation is almost always only important if it plays a
> part in what is being discussed.
>
> For those who consider that gender-neutral grammar will erase sexism, I
> submit China, for which there is NOW a word meaning 'she', which is sounds
> EXACTLY like the word 'he', resulting in odd speech patterns among Chinese
> students of English (e.g. 'He drove her car to the store' -- ko'a sazri
> klama le zarci fu le ko'a karce ). In spite of a lack of grammatical
> genderism, China does not lack sexism.  On the other hand, if we do indeed
> hope to leave sexism in our past, then having a gender neutral language
> should aid in our endeavor.
>
> Be Well,
> mu'o mi'e bobgrif.
> Bob Griffin
>
> >From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
> >
> > > Instead of merely providing gender-neutral options so that we don't
> > > default to sexist usages, Lojban seems to make you work hard to
> > > provide the casual, ubiquitous gender awareness we are used to.
> >
> >And good for it, in my opinion.
> >
> >I don't *like* that ubiquitous gender/sex awareness.  Why should it be
> >any more relevant, when discussing (say) a shopkeeper from whom I
> >bought something today, that the shopkeeper is a man, but not that,
> >say, the shopkeeper is Oriental, or short, or any of the equally
> >obvious categories said shopkeeper might fit into?  Yet English, like
> >most natural languages, forces me to drag one of them in, willy-nilly,
> >and makes me work to drag any of the others in.  I much prefer the
> >Lojban way, making you say what you mean, but not requiring you to say
> >more than you mean - and not making it trivial to say "the person I was
> >speaking of (who happens to be a man)" and clumsy to say "the person I
> >was speaking of (who happens to be short)".
> >
> >Douglas Hofstatder, I think it was, wrote a lovely little piece: "A
> >Person Paper on Purity in Language", which appeared in Metamagical
> >Themas.  See www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html,
> >which brings this linguistic bias into delightful focus.

-- 
-4

How many Lojbanists does it take to change a broken lightbulb?
 Two: one to decide what to change it into, and another to figure out what 
kind of bulb would emit broken light.