Vikram Sundarraman
Sun May 4 15:39:27 49558,
Okay, we don't need to get into that whole debate again here. However, regarding your hammer analogy I have only one submission to make. If the hammer was really used properly, we should have certainly ended up handling gender more like Toki Pona (which has no grammatical gender markers at all) or Ido (which handles gender symmetrically). Even purely from the point of view of logic and efficiently, gender asymmetry is a very bad idea and I don't see any valid reason, other than a certain sense of fanatic attachment to a particular cultural notion, for retaining in it a language that hopes to become the lingua franca of the world. If you had a hammer, will you hit the nail head on or sideways? I think the design should default to neutral gender, not masculine or feminine speaking purely from the point of view of simplicity of learning and logical and efficient design.
Mike S.
Sun May 4 15:39:28 49558,
I can't understand why people are always floating Toki Pona in auxlang discussions. Toki Pona makes it very difficult to discuss gender stuff at all.
Since I get the impression that you want to discuss gender issues, why would you and Jan Misali tout a language like Toki Pona? The whole point of that language is to take your mind off of complex and troubling thoughts. It's not meant to serve as an auxlang.
I myself, as a conlanger intending to publish a loglang in the near future, would never implement asymmetrical gender markings, and I would always make
gender marking optional (roots epicene by default) including in pronouns. As for why Esperanto will not change: Simply put, Esperantists consider reform-mongering to be the greater evil.
