Gender in Pronouns Saul Epstein Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:01:39 -0500 Hello, all. I'm starting to work on a new description of the part of the ZC Grammar that includes pronouns, and I am once again reminded that I don't like part of it. As originally stated, pronouns are distinguished in 3 genders in the 3rd person: he/these men, she/these women, and it/these things. On its face, this distinction seems to prevent the possibility of referring to a person in the abstract, as it were, without specifying gender, and to prevent the possibility of referring to a group of people which includes both genders without generalizing (and excluding one or the other). The set of affixes looks like this: masculine feminine neuter w wl n I've been thinking about it and, if we can agree this is a problem, I've arrived at two solutions. The first is to create a fourth category of distinction, something like "general sentient" which would refer to a person or people without specifying gender. The set of affixes might look something like: sentient | non-sentient -------------------------------+------------- general | feminine | masculine | --------+----------+-----------| n w | l | r | The second solution is to allow the neuter to include sentient things. In other words, a hypothetical person would be an "it" just like an actual or hypothetical thing. A group of people of mixed gender would also be "things." So then we would have: masculine feminine (n)either/both w wl n The chief advantage to the first solution seems to be that it allows greater precision. The chief advantage to the second solution seems to be that we don't have to adopt any surface changes, only a change in the way the surface is understood. I welcome any comments... -- from Saul Epstein locus*planetkc,com - www,planetkc,com/locus "Surakri' ow'phacur the's'hi the's'cha'; the's'pharka the's'hi surakecha'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at