Re: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

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.

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 - pro-sumti: that there; nearby demonstrative it; indicated thing/place near listener.

So I showed an example where exactly that meaning was intended.

 

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
    "The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly."

(2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi
    "The woman was looking at the mirror. She 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"?

 

but you don't have 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

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. 

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. 

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 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. 

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

-- 
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/-/Lj1eznUTZNQJ.
 
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.