English absolutely has grammatical gender, it just defaults to “male” so much people forget there’s other options. For example, “teacheress” is a real word, it’s just so archaic that the male word now means both, same with how “you” is both singular and plural.
I mean if you want to go that far, there’s an argument to be made that the gendered terms wifman, werman, man, woman, and men were all simplified, to the gender neutral term of man and the feminine specific term of woman. We seem to have gone back and forth linguistically.
Well, uh, yes. The thread OP notes greek (as in bible) uses generic masculine forms for plural. Modern English takes that tack much more broadly, using the theoretically masculine term for everything. And you can tell it’s masculine, not neuter, because, eg. a steward (of Gondor) is a steward, but a (-n air) stewardess is now a flight attendant.
Being immediately identifiable isn’t the standard, for example in languages that don’t use the definite article (Slavic languages, for example) the first noun wouldn’t necessarily exhibit it’s grammatical gender, but it wouldn’t mean it doesn’t have one. Also, the brackets you used get parsed by boost as html tags.
The very existence of gendered nouns and pronouns means English has gender. It’s just less noticeable because unlike the German “-innen” approach, English typically shoves most things into neuter and mostly defaults to male for persons and then hides it behind “he or she” or a singular “they”. You can argue it’s archaic or vestigial, and I’d agree, but it is there. Same how nouns don’t exhibit cases, but pronouns do. Compare:
“The man stood there, the man’s hand on the coffee cup, the cup warming the man”.
“He stood there, his hand on the coffee cup, the cup warming him.”
Having some feminitives in lexicon is not the same as having grammatical gender. I mean, is having a word for werewolf the same as having a “wolf” gender?
“Some feminitives” is disingenuous. It’s an Indo-European language, it shares the structure of other IE languages, in some cases pared down and/or in disuse, but they’re still there, same as vestigial base-12 counting.
I don’t get why people are so upset about the concept of grammatical gender, though. It’s gramatical, it’s not actual gender - original division in PIE was “animate” and “inanimate”. Hell, I vaguely remember a conlang that had separate genders for terrestrial and aquatic animals, so you could absolutely make one that has a gender for “wolf”.
I’m not talking about that, frankly. Just that grammatical gender means usually its own inflections for cases, for adjectives, for verbs. At least some of those.
Fair point. My point would be that English doesn’t really inflect words at all, but when it does, namely pronouns, it has both cases and genders.
For comparison, in German, cases don’t change nouns either (except some genitives - kinda like English, now that i think about it), they instead affect articles, and even then the nominative and accusative case are identical, except for masculine singular nouns, and first and second person pronouns. So, if n. and f. nouns dominate, you could make the case that German doesn’t have an acc. case, and then make a carveout for m. noun “outliers”. Except step into first and second person, and acc. pops back out, meaning it was always there, even for f. and n.
OK, I agree with the argument, but one can call that a rudiment - same as for Russian some people say it has not 6, but 7 cases. That is, a vocative case (which archaic Russian speech would have, Belorussian and Ukrainian have without doubt, but standard Russian does not formally). It’s used when calling someone by name, like “Вась, Петь, Миш, Маш”.
English absolutely has grammatical gender, it just defaults to “male” so much people forget there’s other options. For example, “teacheress” is a real word, it’s just so archaic that the male word now means both, same with how “you” is both singular and plural.
I mean if you want to go that far, there’s an argument to be made that the gendered terms wifman, werman, man, woman, and men were all simplified, to the gender neutral term of man and the feminine specific term of woman. We seem to have gone back and forth linguistically.
Well, uh, yes. The thread OP notes greek (as in bible) uses generic masculine forms for plural. Modern English takes that tack much more broadly, using the theoretically masculine term for everything. And you can tell it’s masculine, not neuter, because, eg. a steward (of Gondor) is a steward, but a (-n air) stewardess is now a flight attendant.
Take “The <noun> has a yellow <noun>”. Which gender do these nouns have? In German, I could tell you. Both articles and the adjective have a gender.
Of course, you can use gendered nouns, but only a very small minority of nouns actually have female forms.
Being immediately identifiable isn’t the standard, for example in languages that don’t use the definite article (Slavic languages, for example) the first noun wouldn’t necessarily exhibit it’s grammatical gender, but it wouldn’t mean it doesn’t have one. Also, the brackets you used get parsed by boost as html tags.
The very existence of gendered nouns and pronouns means English has gender. It’s just less noticeable because unlike the German “-innen” approach, English typically shoves most things into neuter and mostly defaults to male for persons and then hides it behind “he or she” or a singular “they”. You can argue it’s archaic or vestigial, and I’d agree, but it is there. Same how nouns don’t exhibit cases, but pronouns do. Compare:
“The man stood there, the man’s hand on the coffee cup, the cup warming the man”.
“He stood there, his hand on the coffee cup, the cup warming him.”
Having some feminitives in lexicon is not the same as having grammatical gender. I mean, is having a word for werewolf the same as having a “wolf” gender?
“Some feminitives” is disingenuous. It’s an Indo-European language, it shares the structure of other IE languages, in some cases pared down and/or in disuse, but they’re still there, same as vestigial base-12 counting.
I don’t get why people are so upset about the concept of grammatical gender, though. It’s gramatical, it’s not actual gender - original division in PIE was “animate” and “inanimate”. Hell, I vaguely remember a conlang that had separate genders for terrestrial and aquatic animals, so you could absolutely make one that has a gender for “wolf”.
I’m not talking about that, frankly. Just that grammatical gender means usually its own inflections for cases, for adjectives, for verbs. At least some of those.
Fair point. My point would be that English doesn’t really inflect words at all, but when it does, namely pronouns, it has both cases and genders.
For comparison, in German, cases don’t change nouns either (except some genitives - kinda like English, now that i think about it), they instead affect articles, and even then the nominative and accusative case are identical, except for masculine singular nouns, and first and second person pronouns. So, if n. and f. nouns dominate, you could make the case that German doesn’t have an acc. case, and then make a carveout for m. noun “outliers”. Except step into first and second person, and acc. pops back out, meaning it was always there, even for f. and n.
OK, I agree with the argument, but one can call that a rudiment - same as for Russian some people say it has not 6, but 7 cases. That is, a vocative case (which archaic Russian speech would have, Belorussian and Ukrainian have without doubt, but standard Russian does not formally). It’s used when calling someone by name, like “Вась, Петь, Миш, Маш”.
Well, it’s never clear cut with languages
True.