Re: [lojban] gender

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

Actually, no. The real reason is because I want to make it explicit that
using the gender gismu without specifying what kind of gender is
omitting critical information.

On 11/07/2011 12:30 PM, vitci'i wrote:
> 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.