[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- Jacques Deh�e <jacquesdehe@hidden.email> wrote:
> Le sistema " linguist - linguista - linguisto "
> es aplicabile
> a tote le caracteristicas humane, a tote le
> relationes parentale,
> a tote le profesiones, a tote le nationalitas,
> a tote le nomes
> de habitantes d'urbes e vilages, a tote le
> species animale sexuate,
> dunque a centos de miles de nomes.
What are the different terminations supposed to
mean?
In a Romance language context, obviously -a is
the feminine singular and -o is the masculine
singular. What does the null termination
reperesent?
> Sur iste sistema egalitare reposa le futuro del
> linguas planificate.
A pretty bold statement -- one quite suited to a
mere auxlang polemic. The blanket statement
misses the point entirely: a system that is based
on the Romance languages' notion of division of
gender and with all of the cultural and societal
baggage that goes with is inherently
_non_egalitarian. An egalitarian system either
does away with all notions of gender altogether,
so that everyone is neutered in equal measures,
or else it completely reinvents gender issues in
a cumbersome and unnatural way so that no one is
able to connect the new system with the old.
And the whole system above begs the question once
again: why is it so important to distinguish
genders? What's the underlying need to
differentiate, *especially* in a "planned
interlanguage", between say, "la porta" and "le
edificio"? Especially given the context of the
stem system in the Romance languages as inherited
from the parent and grandparent languages (where
they were actually still sort of meaningful).
> Cordialmente, Jacques
Cheers,
Padraic
Camifi, Marusi, teterani, tester fuferios asteros; tamenio
vem Persaecion empuriase ed ec pasem emduriase!
--Pomperios Perfurios.
--
Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.bethisad.com>
Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>
.