Doug Dee wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/2004 7:21:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bpj@MELROCH.SE writes:
>
>>Other candidate categories for animacy are:
>
>
>>-- Spirits and gods (naturally).
>>-- Heavenly bodies (these are gods to the speakers!)
>>-- Fire.
>>-- Water.
>>-- Weather phenomena.
>>-- Metals (the only more odd category that has suggested itself to me.)
>
>
>>Can anyone suggest more possibly animate categories, preferably with
>>explanation why they would be considered animate?
>
>
> How abut plants that can turn to face the sun?
I'm undecided on that, for the personal reason that the Buddha
teaches that plants are insentient.
> You already have "heavenly bodies," but I'll mention that I read that these
> are grammatically animate in some North American languages beacuse they move
> without evident external cause (and not because they are necessarily viewed as
> divine).
That's why they are seen as divine by the Sohlesjn!
> Body parts of humans and animals are a possibility.
Yes, definitely.
> I have a conlang in which books are grammatically animate, on the grounds
> that books are capable of using language and thus belong in the class with people.
Excellent idea! So "I read in the book" would be "The book.ERG says
to me.DAT..."?
>
> Doug
>
>
--
/BP 8^)
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)