gismu/bridi...

[cbmvax!uunet!dino.ulowell.edu!gryphon (Coranth)]

coirodo.

"I wrote:
>>Personally, I think adding seperate gismu only to allow gender distinctions
>>is a bad idea unless necessary ("mamta"/"patfu")

Lojbab replied:
>Define "necessary" in a culturally-neutral manner.  Why are the two you
>mentioned necessary and not the others?

"mamta"/"patfu"  are words that refer to a biological process. That process
is gender dependent. I man does not have the biological hardware inherent
to be a "mamta", and vice versa.

OK, I agree with the other comments. My wanting to eliminate the gender as
an inherent part is just as biased as others needing it to be there.

Future usage will support or make foolish my position. Personally, I plan
on using the lujvo and gender-generic terms, others may not.

Of the people that mailed replies to me, some agreed with some of my points,
others with others. And it was a pretty good distribution for and against
each set. In other words, the jury is still out on some, and enough
people see the need for different gismu that there is apparently enough
distinction.

One last point I'd like to clarify my position on:

I wrote:
>> A bridi is a RELATIONSHIP. There should not be seperate bridi for the same
>> relationship.  Gender distictions which do not affect the relationship
>> should be left out by default, and expressed only if necessary.

John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com) replied:
>Who knows whether they affect the relationship?  It's a cultural question.

Not 'relationship' (english context - family structure). Rather I was
referring to place structure relationships.

and Lojbab wrote:
>The rule is that every brivla should have only one meaning, NOT that
>every meaning have one brivla.

OK, but I see this as a loophole. A one-to-one meaning - brivla pairing
seems simpler to me.

"

co'orodo.

				mi'e korant.