#animacy

[dedalvs]

How does gender(animate and inanimate) evolve typically, And I saw your video on vowel quality changes but I didn't quite see how certain diphthongs could change overtime, specifically:ai,ei,oi,əi,au,eu, and əu. Thank you so much if you can help me with these!

Usually animate vs. inanimate isn't marked in the way, say, masculine and feminine is (most of the time) in Spanish. Rather, animate and inanimate nouns are treated differently, and those differences end up getting codified.

As a sidetrack, consider mass and count nouns in English. These are definite noun classes of English that you have to understand to use the language well, but they're not marked, and generally not taught. The differences, though, are pronounced:

I'll have a hot dog. 🙂

I'll have hot dog. 😬

I'll have a rice. 😬

I'll have rice. 🙂

You can certainly invent contexts where the 😬 ones work, but they usually involve either (a) jokes, or (b) turning the noun into an opposite type via zero derivation. For example, imagine you're being served at a counter of improbable ice cream flavors, and after surveying them all (typewriter, Nintendo Wii Nunchuck buttons, forgetfulness, fig) you decide you want hot dog flavored ice cream, and so you ask for hot dog [flavored ice cream]. Now imagine a series of keychains with pictures of foods on them, and after looking at them all, you decide you want a rice [keychain]. In other words, the way to make the 😬 ones work is to take a naturally count noun and treat it like a mass noun and vice-versa.

The same logic that applies here applies to the development of animacy, but usually with different parameters. For example, inanimate nouns are more likely to be objects and less likely to be subjects. One very common phenomenon you'll see in language is the following (btw, @staff, if we could add tables to Tumblr, I would be so, so, so very happy):

Animate Subject: Noun

Animate Object: Modified Noun

Inanimate Subject: Noun

Inanimate Object Noun

The reason is the animate noun occurring as an object is a bit of a surprise, but is also common enough that it needs to be demarcated or set apart in some way. An inanimate noun is much less likely to be a subject so language users don't care enough to make an event of it.

But look at that! Suddenly there's an animacy distinction in the language. It's pretty minor, but it can keep going. For example, as in Dothraki, sometimes only animate nouns are allowed an explicit plural. Inanimate nouns aren't conisdered important enough to distinguish. That is, it doesn't matter how much rice, how many rocks, how many shirts there are (if it is, there's numbers), but it is important to know how many sisters, how many cats, how many grandparents, etc. there are without having to ask.

Now imagine that being applied to the above system with subjects and objects treated differently depending on animacy. Suddenly animate and inanimate nouns look very different.

And you can keep going in this fashion. Eventually you'll have some full on noun classes that need to be taught explicitly.

[backpack-mug]

animantic equipment in avowed

[pink-lemonade-rose]

[...] the English language is a language of objectification of the living world, right? When we see that beautiful moon, we say “it” is shining; those swallows, “it” is chittering as “it” flies overhead. In English, we “it” the living world, whereas in Potawatomi that’s not possible. We use the same grammar for each other as we do for our plant and animal relatives. As a writer, particularly as a science writer, I am so frustrated by the need to conform to the objectification of the Western scientific paradigm and refer to my teachers and companions as “its.” And so, interrogating the animacy of Bode’wadmi, my own language, there is a beautiful word that we have that means just “an earth being.” This was given to me by one of my language teachers: bmaadiziiaki. You know, it’s a beautiful word and will never find its way into English, but aki, and then that little sound at the end, ki, comes from the word for earth—for the animate, living earth. And so I proposed that we use ki as a neologism, as a new word, instead of it, so that we don’t have “it” swallows and owls and foxes and dandelions—so that we can say, Ki is growing in the yard, ki is running along the hedgerow. Not “it,” but “ki.” Try it!

Robin Wall Kimmerer, "Kinship is a Verb"

[gemstonestudies]

02.21.2026

Reading Braiding Sweetgrass for linguistics. I will be presenting on “Learning the Grammar of Animacy” Wednesday morning with a classmate.

I’ve encountered it as assigned reading for environmental education and comparative studies courses prior to this, and I actually read it for pleasure even before that. It warms me to see how Kimmerer’s message seems to be spreading in academia, but I have a feeling the linguists in my class won’t be so easily swayed by her perspective.

[quotelr]

We Americans are reluctant to learn a foreign language of our own species, let alone another species. But imagine the possibilities. Imagine the access we would have to different perspectives, the things we might see through other eyes, the wisdom that surrounds us. We don’t have to figure out everything by ourselves: there are intelligences other than our own, teachers all around us. Imagine how much less lonely the world would be.

Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants

[cthulu-in-a-ballgown]

Verb-based languages are played out. Navajo, Lojban, give me a break! Instead, have a noun-based language, where the verb is suffixed to all nouns it acts on.

Wait, I hear you saying. How do you tell the subject from the object? Simple: animacy. The more animate thing always acts on the less animate thing.

But how is animacy decided? Well, ascribing your own motivations to something, anthropomorphizing it, turning it into a puppet to tell your stories. . . that's a pretty good way to get rid of something's inherent animacy. So the most animate things are the least frequently anthropomorphized, and vice versa.

LV1: non-moving non-conscious things

LV2: moving non-conscious things

LV3: moving conscious things.

So it's actually impossible to say something like "I watch TV." Instead, the TV watches you. 1.SG.LV3-watch tv-LV1-watch.

Welcome to Soviet Russia.

[kidiyaan]

Bimaadiziwin/Animacy

Nishnaabemowin doesn’t necessarily have gender, rather it classes nouns based on Animacy.

Verbs often structure themselves around whether the noun is animate or inanimate, so to know the Animacy of a noun is important.

Animacy is typically based on whether a noun is a living noun or not, but there are nouns that are animate in Nishnaabemowin that, in the western world, aren’t seen as animate (reproductive organs are a good example of these that are culturally animate).

Animate Nouns

Animate nouns are pluralized using the ending -g

Example: Waagosh (Fox) -> Waagoshag (Foxes)

Animate nouns also use the animate forms of verbs and particles

Example: Wadikwaniwig oweg wadoopag:

Those alders have branches (lit: they have branches those alders)

Typically Animate Nouns:

Living things (plants, animals, etc)

Rocks and earth

Reproductive organs

Inner-body phenomena (blood clots, heart attacks, etc)

Inanimate Nouns

Inanimate nouns are pluralized using -n

Example: Emikwaan (Spoon) -> Emikwaanan (Spoons)

There are also separate verbs and particles for inanimate nouns

Example: Iw Emikwaan Odininaan:

He is holding that spoon

Iniw Emikwaanan Odininaanig

He is holding those spoons

[zemo-xiri-se]

Writing up animacy distinctions in Siren.

People can’t agree which animacy to use for humans or cars, but it’s pretty much unanimous people who class their Roombas as inanimate are monsters.