[line-re-wrapped excerpt] > No you're not. For people like me, you're pointing THE question. > You are ranking issues : first *essential* semantical > features (words), then *secondary* ones (other semema, grammema). > To me you're mixing concepts and words like David > points it out. It's very logical and wise on the basis of nowadays' science. > But do concepts match words ? Linguists would tell you no way. > You experience that plural and genders are not as *important* as core-word > because science tells you that *lions* only are a plurality of *lion*. > But would you say that *people* are merely *human-s* ? > No : you would say *men*. Did you notice it has an inflected plural ? > Would you dare say it does not hold a specific semantical meaning ? > Ancient Indo-Europeans would *know* that dual, trial and plural meant > something more than plurality, something rooted in special concepts. > Now these concepts are gone. Would you still discard these concepts as > *secondary* because science tells us today that numbers 2 and 3 do > not hold any special POWER anymore ? > I respect my ancesters who were so proud of expressing genders on each noun, > probably out of the pride of having discovered a *scientific* > classification of the world. Would you now be so brave > as to express on each noun you pronounce a classifier for *oxygen+hydrogen* > or else based on today's scientific discoveries ? :-) > I bet you couldn't because we don't master our own language - > and our own imagination - anymore. I think this all supports the (in-?)famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that a language shapes (does not just express) thoughts. I thought that was the intent of Lojban, to explore different ways of thinking, rather than claiming to be the One True Faith.