Print

Print


[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.