Re: [lojban] gender

[vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>]

Because we're going to want to specify it often.

On 11/07/2011 12:16 PM, H. Felton wrote:
> Why not use lujvo?
> 
> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:59 -0600, vitci'i wrote:
>> One gismu for all of them, with a place to specify which one you're
>> talking about.
>>
>> On 11/07/2011 11:35 AM, John E Clifford wrote:
>>> Which "gender" should have a gismu? grammatical, phenotypic, social, cultural, 
>>> intentional, genetic, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 2011/11/7 John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> Gloryoski!  Why should Lojban be able to sort out things that the experts in the 
>>> field can't yet get straight?  Grammatical gender is defined by concordance and 
>>> has, in a few languages, some more than casual relation to some physical 
>>> features of the referents.  Other languages have derivational devices (other 
>>> than concordance) to signal (somewhat more regularly) such physical features 
>>> (along with others, e.g., size, age). Still others basically don't notice.  As 
>>> for the features involved, the range is enormous.  And when you throw in genetic 
>>> data or cultural norms or internal intentions, you pass well beyond what 
>>> languages manage to deal with comfortably (or even uncomfortably).
> 
> Here, however, I think that using "cinse" is malglico; derive 
> the words from "klesi" instead.
> 

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.