On 2014-12-02 11:01 PM, Stephen Rice wrote (excerpted for brevity):

Thanks for responding.

> On 11/20/14, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> However, the current LFN documentation seems to indicate that now 'el'
>> refers only to feminine and masculine, whereas there is now a separate
>> pronoun 'lo': [...]
>> I cannot (so far) find any online reference as to when the LFN pronoun
>> system changed and why the change was made. Does anyone have any
>> information?
> There were moves in that direction years ago. While the male/female
> distinction may usually be ignored, adding inanimates and animals
> overloaded the system, so there was an unofficial tendency (mentioned
> in the grammar, I think) to use "esta" for "it." I'm not sure
> precisely when they introduced "lo," however.

However, are there not languages on this green earth which use only one 
third-person singular pronoun, regardless of sex / gender / animateness 
/ inanimateness? After all, English uses only the indifferent 'they' in 
the plural, a "How can that possibly work?" feature in the estimation of 
users whose languages distinguish in the plural. (Even IALA Interlingua 
has separate plural forms, rather in contradiction to one of the basic 
-- supposed -- grammatical principles.)

I am wondering if this is another instance of, "My natlang has such and 
such a feature; therefore, any well-behaved conIAL must also necessarily 
have this feature." Granted, it is a design decision, but if you are 
going to multiply pronouns, perhaps you should go as far as that of Ido 
(although even Ido does not make the inclusive / exclusive distinction 
in first-person plural, as do some langauges).

> Looking at the change log for the Wikipedia LFN article shows that the
> bit about "lo" was added Jan 11, 2012 at 20:38 by (apparently) Boeree
> himself:

Good catch. I am not adept at Wikipedias, so I didn't know to look at a 
change log (or even know that such things exist :) ).

> Checking the talk section, Yahoo group, and wiki hasn't turned up any
> discussion at this point, which seems a bit odd.

Perhaps George Boeree did it simply by fiat. :)

> [...]

>> For instance, one user vigorously stumped for an irrealis mood particle
>> for verbs, and I noticed that he was a native hispanophone, whose
>> language has such a mood. Even George Boeree, the originator of LFN,
>> seemed doggedly determined to relexify the English progressive verb
>> forms, which may be quite rare (in the way they are used in English
>> itself), and various users seemed unable to break themselves of
>> perpetually marking verbs.
> This is where importing features carelessly leads to trouble. [...]


Paul Bartlett