somewhat off-topic: animacy again.

[R. Rankin]

> 3. AkHa does indeed occur with many things we consider 'inanimate.'
> But they tend to be natural phenomenon similar to what Bob proposed
> which are culturally important. The horse harness surprises me, but maybe it's
because it is so
> related to horse (animate).  I've never seen akHa with something
> like 'pencil.'

I experimented with the notions [+human] and/or [+animate] with Spanish speakers
in one of my grammar classes.  You recall that in Spanish a human direct object
requires the preposed accusative marker {a}, usually described as a
"preposition".  Juan ama a Maria "John loves Mary".  I wondered how many
different things speakers could consider "animate" for the purposes of this
construction.  It varied widely with nationality, gender, context, the verb
used, etc.

Humans all qualified, including titles like 'profesor', 'jefe', proper names,
etc.
Pets qualified quite generally -- dogs & cats.
Childrens dolls, including stuffed animals generally qualified.
Farm animals (domesticated) were OK for some, but not as you are eating them --
cows, pigs, horses, etc. For others, farm animals didn't make the grade.
Statues generally didn't, although statues of humans were OK.

Even something as totally inanimate as a bridge or building made it into the
class as long as one was talking about, say, the architect or engineer, who
considered it as "his baby" -- that sort of thing.  But of course generally such
things wouldn't qualify.  It was an interesting exercise in linguistic
creativity.

Bob