Live data from Hacker News

Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

antigonejournal.com

11–20 of 203 posts

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#11
I dislike the term "gender" in linguistics. Many languages have grammatical gender that has nothing to do with masculine/feminine. "Noun class" gives the idea better. Noun classes in Indo-European and a couple other major language families happen to somewhat align with grammatical markers indicating animal/human sex. But it doesn't have to. Many languages make an animate/inanimate distinction.

It is one of those mysteries that several major language families all do it in a similar way. From Ancient Egyptian to Latin to small languages spoken in New Guinea, there is a common pattern of grammatical markings associated with indicating a person or animal's sex, ending up used to indicate noun classes and govern alignment/agreement patterns.

But why? Well, in languages like Latin with fairly free word order, noun classes and the associated agreement help indicate what goes with what. My take is that it's almost like a form of forwards error correction or type annotation. The way it arises like that doesn't seem too far-fetched.

The persistence is tricky though. Normally a feature in a language that isn't productive is going to get worn down by sound changes, etc. and eventually lost. But grammatical gender rarely gets lost. (English is a major exception as an Indo-European language here.) Even as Latin transformed over thousands of years into French, with grammar and phonology that are basically unrecognizable, a basic gender system persists in the language. I can only assume its error correcting/type annotating properties are still useful even in modern French?

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#12

> Since my schooldays I have been listening patiently to claims that Latin and the Romance languages are inherently sexist because if you have a group of men and women, the adjectives will be masculine. This can be just as easily reversed. Imagine if instead we would use feminine gender for a mixed group and masculine gender only when the group is composed of men. Someone then might complain that this is sexist becau…

I don't think it is fair to think up hypothetical situations like these and use that as a basis for an ideology about sexism

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#13

I didn't read the whole article but skimmed through it and didn't see a clear answer to the question "why does grammatical gender exist"? As a native English speaker, I've never understood why it was invented in the first place.

My guess would be animism giving genders to objects along with spirits, and from there on the newer, more abstract nouns either developed from older gendered nouns or got a default gender.

And it gets continued usefulness as an error detection and correction mechanism.

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#14
post #4
post #3

I have always found gender in German confusing. This gives a little more context. Of course in English we have a tiny bit of gendered nouns where we append "man" or "woman" to some job titles based on the gender of the person holding the title (policeman, congressman, etc). This has become problematic when we use the plural. Also in English we have gendered pronouns which has become a hot topic in the last couple of…

> This has become problematic when we use the plural. Grammatically, it's not problematic at all. Some people with new ideas completely out of line with the culture at large make a big deal of it.

Not sure what you mean. It's certainly grammar that is causing the problem. And yes, it's a problem because some people think it's a problem—that's true of all problems by definition.

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#15

> Since my schooldays I have been listening patiently to claims that Latin and the Romance languages are inherently sexist because if you have a group of men and women, the adjectives will be masculine. This can be just as easily reversed. Imagine if instead we would use feminine gender for a mixed group and masculine gender only when the group is composed of men. Someone then might complain that this is sexist becau…

I don't think it is fair to think up hypothetical situations like these and use that as a basis for an ideology about sexism

It's just a simple test - if all permutations of some situation lead to the same outcome, then the outcome cannot be said to be caused by the situation.

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#16
post #11

I dislike the term "gender" in linguistics. Many languages have grammatical gender that has nothing to do with masculine/feminine. "Noun class" gives the idea better. Noun classes in Indo-European and a couple other major language families happen to somewhat align with grammatical markers indicating animal/human sex. But it doesn't have to. Many languages make an animate/inanimate distinction. It is one of those myst…

I wonder if there are any examples of this in languages from the many cultures past and present that always recognized more than two sex-derived genders.

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is fair to think up hypothetical situations like these and use that as a basis for an ideology about sexism

It's just a simple test - if all permutations of some situation lead to the same outcome, then the outcome cannot be said to be caused by the situation.

Yeah but, how would you even test this realistically? its just a hypothetical situation. You can't change the etymology of a word and test the outcome

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#18

I didn't read the whole article but skimmed through it and didn't see a clear answer to the question "why does grammatical gender exist"? As a native English speaker, I've never understood why it was invented in the first place.

More importantly; why hasn't it been removed?

Instead of Latin, can I please have a logical language intended for thinking about scientific and engineering processes invented that's similar to the idea of the Ancients in Star Gate (the TV series)?

Re: Gender in Latin and Beyond: A Philologist’s Take

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a simple test - if all permutations of some situation lead to the same outcome, then the outcome cannot be said to be caused by the situation.

Yeah but, how would you even test this realistically? its just a hypothetical situation. You can't change the etymology of a word and test the outcome

All I am saying is that it's just a matter of perspective. If we have a separate word for a group of women that can be seen in both ways: either as a special treatment for women (the group of women stands out when no men are present) or as a special treatment for men (the mixed groups is referred to in masculine terms).

Personally, I am not sure how these linguistic details evolved, but I wouldn't be surprised that the original intention was to place a special emphasis on women. Because the word for a mixed group should have been "invented" first, and then a separate word for women added on top.

But don't quote me on that.

But there is an interesting precedent about dual-words (in the languages that have them), where you use a special form of a word to denote groups of two people. And according to research I've seen those words were added after a word for a group of any size was available - to place a special emphasis on a group of two.

Post reply on HN