Print

[wildeyes]

i believe there are two symbols which are pronounced "ki" in japanese. the ki Nodal Nim and I refer to is 気. But "ki" means tree when associated with this symbol: 木.

[chase]

Ai'm a little offended at peoples' prejudice against the word 'it'...Ai say we just eliminate the distinction made between animate and inanimate beings and call everyone "it".

Offended? Wow, it doesn't take much, does it?

To take you literally, calling everyone 'it' poses a challenge for me, as currently my mind reads 'it' as 'nonliving, nonperson'. Rather than use that on everything, I'd rather just abandon it. Whatever its roots, it means what it means to me, right now, today.

Looking in context, I see you may not mean that literally. In that sense, I think several folks have suggested just that: one pronoun for all beings, whether 'ki' or your 'hey' or whatever. Chinuk Wawa uses 'yaka' and 'klaska' for all singular and plural third-persons. Sign language uses a pointing thumb or finger, if I remember right.

Thats not what ai said at all. Ai meant to use "it" as its old context ONLY - a gender neutral third person , modified use: if you do not know the gender or it is ambiguous or doesnt matter. The same with the chart that ai put in my earlier post. Also, ai am somewhat offended when people want to get rid of things just because civilization has corrupted them, instead of studying what it meant before European expantion and industrialism and reclaiming it.

[Willem]

Thats not what ai said at all. Ai meant to use "it" as its old context ONLY - a gender neutral third person , modified use: if you do not know the gender or it is ambiguous or doesnt matter. The same with the chart that ai put in my earlier post.

Ah! Ok. So not as a substitute, but simply as we already use it, you mean? Hmm. Personally 'it' doesn't do much for me. I've had lots of experiences where 'it' has framed other beings as less-valuable, less-alive, and I want to get rid of that, get it out of my brain. I understand that you value the original sense of the word; in my language-world, the connotation has moved far beyond that original sense.

Also, ai am somewhat offended when people want to get rid of things just because civilization has corrupted them, instead of studying what it meant before European expantion and industrialism and reclaiming it.

I don't think civilization corrupted Old English - I think civilization made Old English. I do what I can to honor the part of my heritage that comes from that soil (and that language), but I have no problems junking most of it (philosophically anyway). I use extant indigenous languages as my guide for linguistic sanity, and see what shakes out when I filter English through them.

I don't know what to do with your offense - I respect it, but I don't really understand it. Could you tell me more about your connection to this history/lineage, and why you value it?

I think Tolkien did the most to make me value the oral tradition of my Northern European ancestors. I love that guy. Kings and all. Sigh.

[Nodal Nim]

Th way I see it, th word "it" has developed th connotation of "thing", "object", "less than a person."  Many people (but of course not all) would find some offense in getting called "it."

"I'm not an it!  I'm a human being!"

I've noticed th pronouns people use when they refer to th dogs I walk.  When they say "it," they usually do so in a context such as, "Does it bite?  Please keep it away from me."  When they don't say "it" (usually they say "he," demonstrating our unconscious sex bias - another story) they'll say more positive things, like, "Can I pet him?  What's his name?  He's so cute!"

I think "he/she" grants personhood & "it" denies personhood.
Many people relate well with dogs (man's best friend, & whatnot), so they will call them "he" or "she" (but not if they hate dogs or fear them).  But how often have you heard someone refer to a spider as "he" or "she"?  Not very often, & usually not in th context of, "Let's smash her!"  If you intend to smash a living creature, you'll probably call it "it," thus objectifying it & denying it personhood: "Let's smash it!"  When someone calls a spider "he" or "she", that person grants it some degree of personhood: "No, don't smash her.  Let's just let her outside."

So th problem some of us have with "it" stems from th objectification that "it" implies.  Why wouldn't we call a spider "he" or "she" (or "ze" or "ey" or "ki", etc)?  Why not a tree, or a rock, or a pair of boots, or a computer?  Doing so shows more respect for th entities in our lives.

Think about when a person does call an object, "he" or "she," like a boat or a guitar.  It shows that th object means something to th person.  To some extent, th person has granted th thing some degree of personhood.  I respect that.  In this overwhelmingly materialistic culture we've created, we all need to figure out how to more fully love th entities of our world, living & non-living.

Thus have I spent my two cents.

[Peter Bauer]

I just want to bump this thread up a bit. I continue to get good stuff from it. I'm especially interested in a game like we have with e-prime where we use the gender nuetral pronoun "ki."

Maybe we could even combine the games and add ki into the e-primitive challenges? Ooooh. Now that sounds like fun!