What would a perfect language include?

[metal_wrath]

Adding 'Period.' to the end of statements doesn't really qualify as adequate justification imho
Gender is in many cases directly linked to sex, but is slowly becoming a hazier, more problematic construct... some label to indicate someone as inhabiting the grey region in the middle seems reasonable.

This is not open for debate. There are two genders. The only thing thats hazy is whatever you're smoking. You don't get to add another gender. I have seen folks on this forum make the argument that almost everything is subjective and nothing is fact but this is beyond ridiculous.

If you think we need to have a language which incorporates some idea of a third gender then that is your own opinion which I totally disagree with.

 

[Blowtus]

You are equating gender with sex, not an unreasonable thing to do imho but hardly the whole story of human usage of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

 

[metal_wrath]

You are equating gender with sex, not an unreasonable thing to do imho but hardly the whole story of human usage of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

I am aware, still it seems you are saying we should add another class of nouns for trannies.

My point is that it is not necessary to add gender articles in language and ridiculous to think of adding a third gender for humans and even more ridiculous to assign genders to inanimate objects.

 

[Blowtus]

I am aware, still it seems you are saying we should add another class of nouns for trannies.

Don't remember saying that.

 

[metal_wrath]

What are you saying exactly?

In what way should a language incorporate gender in your opinion, and why is it necessary?

 

[Blowtus]

I said earlier that the addition of a few words, as opposed to structural alterations, makes most sense to me. Structural alterations place an importance on gender that I do not see as existing. Why alter words based on gender, why not age, colour, texture, or the local weather system?

 

[metal_wrath]

I said earlier that the addition of a few words, as opposed to structural alterations, makes most sense to me. Structural alterations place an importance on gender that I do not see as existing. Why alter words based on gender, why not age, colour, texture, or the local weather system?

I think Esperanto has the most positive qualities for a language with none of the unnecessary complexities.

 

[Blowtus]

well, justify it, why is gender more worthy of structural alterations than other common descriptors?

 

[derek]

I haven't seen you so involved in a dicussion here for ages, Blowtus.

 

[metal_wrath]

well, justify it, why is gender more worthy of structural alterations than other common descriptors?

When did I say it was? I have said exactly the opposite in all my posts.

 

[Blowtus]

When did I say it was? I have said exactly the opposite in all my posts.

Esperanto:

amiko - male friend
amikino - female friend

That is what I am referring to as a structural change.

I haven't seen you so involved in a dicussion here for ages, Blowtus.

Checking threads titled things like 'Religion and sience' to see if some nugget of interesting discussion eventually appears is just too painful

 

[metal_wrath]

That is what I am referring to as a structural change.

Esperanto allows for words to be created from roots, this is most likely the reason some words were created to accomodate the two genders. I don't see a problem with having a different word for male and female friend and this does not make the language more complex. This does not change the structure of the language.

Aren't you the one who wants to add words for genders and introduce a third gender into language?

I am completely against having gender articles and declension.

Maybe this discussion can proceed without anymore useless arguments based on misreading of posts.

 

[derek]

Checking threads titled things like 'Religion and sience' to see if some nugget of interesting discussion eventually appears is just too painful

I get it.