Two in the class use Kimmerer's suggested ki/kin for plants already, but others defended it, which could be used, they insisted, with respect. As various views were voiced, ideas deepened and changed. Using a new word could seem contrived - or signal the need for new ways of thinking and feeling. It objectified trees - or protected the treeness of trees from invidious anthropomorphism. All were committed to finding ways to refer to trees "with respect" but it became clear this couldn't be accomplished just with a word. (I proposed a hand gesture.) Whether referring to ki or it, do we use who or what? (One can imagine both "what is ki?" and "who is it?") And we haven't even begun to wrestle with ways of naming plant sentience and behavior, and the affect we bring to this, yearning for a cure for species loneliness or convinced we are condemned to it.
We decided it best to keep the conversation about how to use human language for trees going, to be mindful of our usage, whatever each of us chose to use. But absent from our conversation were any trees, of course. Next week we'll go down to the Lang courtyard trees.
When in doubt, ask?