From: JFC Morfin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 30 2006 - 19:33:51 CST
Languages are human relations protocols. They are related to common
referents (dictionary, culture, locale file, etc. which permits basic
interintelligibility) but are also dependent on the context of each
speaker and of the relation. The important point is the virtuality
each speaker wants to impersonate. We impersonate who we believe we
are or we want to look like. This is very interesting because a man
may want to appear a woman (ex. Noh Theater in Japan). So we should
consider today at least four linguistic genders: male, female,
computer, network. Other linguistic genders can certainly be imagined
by authors with their own semantic and termionology. May be some will take off.
At 10:39 30/09/2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
>On 30 Sep 2006, at 03:18, Jefsey_Morfin wrote:
>> >>Ages are also important in languages, so are trades and
>> >>contexts. In our computer assisted/man-machine relation, the genders
>> >>"computer" and "agent" should be available. So we would often need
>> >>singular, plural, networked.
>> >I do not see what this has to to with characters for human physical
>>Unicode's globalization doctrine (internationalization of the
>>environment + localization of the edges) is stabilised by BCP 47 and
>>RFC 4646 by Mark Davis and Addison Phillips; They provides a
>>consistent language tagging [language, characters, region] for the
>>environment (pages and protocols), localization (CLDR files), and
>If you are saying that a more accurate classification of human sexes
>should be a part of language localization, I do not know about that,
>not being a linguist.
>But the question of the difficulty to properly define human sexes
>pops up in all kinds of contexts. One is the Olympic games, where
>difficulty in defining male/female causes problems - there is no good
>genetic definition to cover all cases, and what really matters is
>probably the levels of hormones such as testosterone.
>And it is no funny for the individuals that are left out in the cold
>by the traditional male/female only classification.
> Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 19:37:50 CST