Re: "organic/non-organicintelligencegender"<wasRe:Ladanandwoman's speak>

'mouse', perhaps?


>From: Robert Hailman <robert@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: "organic/non-organicintelligencegender"<wasRe:Ladanandwoman's
>             speak>
>Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:19:48 -0400
>
>Nik Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Robert Hailman wrote:
> > > You say yourself that the development of something like this on its
>own
> > > is pretty rare
> >
> > But rare is not the same as impossible!  There's no reason to make your
> > language be average.  Developing on its own is far more plausible, I
> > think, than being borrowed from an artificial language.  Besides, I have
> > a hard time imagining the designers of an auxlang deliberately putting
> > in gender.
> >
>I don't think it would be likely for them to put in the male/female
>systems that we have in the European languages, but a system whereby
>everything is modified due to the whether it is technology related or
>not isn't like the male/female system, in that the gender that words
>should be put in is very clear from the topic itself. It's easier to
>decide if a computer, for example, uses or technology or not, then
>whether it's male or female.
>
>Of course, for them to intentionally put it in, there would have to be
>some confusion about it in the already existing language, which could be
>a problem. Maybe certain words about the natural world were reused with
>a different meaning in the electronic world.
>
>--
>Robert
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com