Re: Mixed person plurals: gender & the (in/ex)clusive distinction; !Ora

tomhchappell wrote:

	[---CUT---] A lot of interesting things...

> I expect (sort-of plan) to have a gender distinction
> between "Rational" and "Non-Rational" whose semantic core will
	[---CUT---]

> I expect (sort-of plan) to have a gender distinction
> between "Sentient" and "Non-Sentient".  The "Sentient" ones can
	[---CUT---]

> I expect to have a three-degree distinction of Animacy.  The Freely
> Animate gender will have, as its semantic core, those entities which
	[---CUT---] Remember: Animate, Bound Animate, Inanimate

You'll have to choose one pattern. The three overlap.

> People in real-life natlangs do indeed address non-Rational entities
> all the time.
> In order to be an Addressee, and entity must either be Rational, OR:
> it must be Sentient and at least Bound-Animate.
Absolutely not. A lot of people talk to their computer, insult pieces of
furniture which they bumped into, make lectures to their pets, and so
on. If you have never done any of the above, you're a rare animal.  ;-)

> Why have a 2nd-person gender?
That's a good question. And the answer is mostly (con)cultural. In
archaic societies where men and women have very strict roles, a
male/female distinction is very important on the 2nd person, to remember
a person to hold his/her rank, and eventually to insult somebody while
using the wrong gender toward him/her.

In another society which supports a form of slavery, the bound animate
gender could be the gender of the slaves and of the animals. In a
technological society, the bound animate gender could aswell be the one
used to talk to computers and other artificial life-forms.

Another example is Shaquelingua which has Rational and Irrational
genders. The Rational applies only to persons and persons-like (supposed
to have a personality) and the Irrational applies to everything else.

However, the genders only show on the 3rd personal pronouns because I
didn't think any kind of gender was necessary on the other pronouns. A
person always knows what gender he/she is (Rational) and what the gender
of an addressee is (Rational, most of the time). Besides, on Shaquie,
denying the status of person to somebody is a very serious matter. You
can only do it on purpose and indirectly through the 3rd personal pronouns.

> The usual excuse for doing without gender in the 1st and 2nd persons
> is "the participants in the discourse already know what gender they
> are."
Just what I said.

> True enough if both are "Rational".
> And of course only a "Rational" entity can be the Speaker.
> But, if a non-Rational hears an utterance, how does it know whether
> or not it was the one addressed?
A non-Rational isn't supposed to hear nor think about whether it is the
addressee or not. Otherwise, it's very Rational-like.

> A good clue would be, if the 2nd-person words in the utterance were
> marked with a non-Rational gender.
What's the point? Non-rational things don't care, don't react.

Let's imagine an ambiguous situation. You're in front of your computer,
somebody else is in same room, a window is opened because it's summer.
You say to your computer that is slow to react: "Would you please close
the window?"

Will the person next to you close the (real) window?

It's very unlikely. There are no utterance without a context. If you
actually want to talk to the person, you will look at him and draw his
attention if he doesn't look like to be aware that you are talking to
him. On the other hand, the person who hear you can see that you are
staring at your screen and he will also probably notice that the
sarcastic voice you used wasn't meant for him. Besides, the person also
knows that it's summer, a time when windows remain open.

There can't be any ambiguity as to who or what you are talking.

You don't send letters to non-Rational things to let them move around.
So there is nobody (Rational) that can find such a letter and think that
it may be for him instead.  ;-)

> Well, what does anyone think?
You have my point of view: very unlikely. But don't let me prevent you
from using such a system. That could be an odd feature meant to
disappear from a proto-language, or not. Look at the complex japanese
pronouns.

"You, inanimate things, do you have a soul?"  ;-)

--
==================
Remi Villatel
maxilys_@_tele2.fr
==================

Reply