Newsgroups: sci.lang.translation,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: International Language.
Message-ID: <D29p55.3uw@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <1995Jan9.215743.1541@midway.uchicago.edu> <D26yA6.vD@actrix.gen.nz> <3eu3mf$5ah@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 00:53:26 GMT
Lines: 54
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang.translation:630 sci.lang:34219

In article <3eu3mf$5ah@expert.cc.purdue.edu> buttrcup@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Buttercup) writes:
>I think that the languages may have initially been created to match the
>civilization at the time.

I think you're wrong.  As everyone ought to know, language was created
by God on 23 May 38,471 B.C.  There was no civilisation at that time.

>Additionally, some languages were created opposing to this theory.

Right.  The old fellow with the beard was misbehaving.

>Some languages have very little gender usage

Er, gender usage?  What on earth is that?

>(and as someone said a few posts ago, one didn't have gender at all,
>even 'he' or 'she').

One, indeed!  <scornful laugh>

>And this could be because the people aren't sexist -- but maybe
>because the people were sexist. They created no gender because one
>gender didn't "matter" at the time.

Or it could be because all this talk about `sexism' is drivel.
There are feenty-feen zillion types of classifications of nouns
for agreement purposes and such.  Some languages have just two
genders, some have a dozen, some have about a hundred.  When you
consider the huge variety of criteria on which such classifications
are based, you'll see that the opposition of male and female sex, for
all animals or just for human beings, isn't all that remarkable and
doesn't really deserve to be associated with an ism.  Hell, Lak has
five genders, one of which contains only one word, _q`atta_ `house'.
That's a housist language for you.

>As some of you have said, Esperanto is naturally sexist against
>females due to its -IN- suffix.

Yes.  It's also naturally numberist against collections of things due
to its _-j_ suffix.  And it's naturally casist against direct objects
due to its _-n_ suffix.  And much, much else.

>English is another language that is naturally non-sexist, however the
>most subtle clues show that the people are. For example, why do people
>call their cars 'she' instead of 'it'? According to every grammar book
>I've ever seen, this is 100% wrong -- but it's 100% accepted.

So much the worse for the grammar books you've seen.

-- 
`Release Jesus wi this mob hangin aroon?  Nae chance!'  (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
