Re: "organic/non-organic intelligence gender" <was Re: Ladanandwoman's speak>
|From:||Robert Hailman <robert@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, June 4, 2000, 3:41|
Markus Miekk-oja wrote:
> >I like this very very much. Same argument as I had with Barry Garcia's
> >original proposal: What would cause this system to arise? Government
> >language reforms? A scientific language that was adopted to public use?
> >Et cetera? I don't know. That's up to the conlanger who goes ahead and
> >figures it out in more depth.
> (I'm figuring this out while writing, excuse the perhaps ambiguous / very
> incorrect language).
> 1. Certain actions would only be done by AI:s (due to technical reasons) -
> thereby, statements
> with an organic, a nonorganic intelligent being and a "AI-only verb" would
> be interpreted:
> "a computer does AI-only verb to an organic-being" (or something). You might
> see that this
> very much resembles active-stative languages.
> 2. Other actions would be typically human, ...
> 3. Some actions, on the other hand would neither be typically human or AI.
> If the word order lost its importance, due to reasons 1 and 2, reason #3
> perhaps trigger a gender-split.
I'm having some trouble thinking of AI only verbs in English, but I
could easily see a language having a diferent verb for an AI "thinking"
(calculating) and a human thinking. I see what you mean, though, and
your right, that's a feasible way for a language to get a gender system