Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Jazzoctopus Gender and Articles - 09/21/01 09:35 PM
I think one of the most annoying parts of learning a foreign language is figuring out the gender of all the words and thus the articles that go with them. How did genders come about for nouns? French and Spanish have a rather understandable two, masculine and feminine, but then German throws in a third, neuter. I'm not too familiar with French and Spanish, but German also changes the article depending on the tense of the word: "der" for main noun, "den" for direct object, "dem for indirect object. And that's just the masculine definite article. Throw in the other genders and the indefinite articles and German has about 15 different articles.

English, on the other hand, though so closely related to German, has just three simple articles, "the", "a" and "an". Why the vast difference between so similar languages? And why, when English phonetics are so confusing, are the indefinite articles based on whether the word starts with a vowel or a consonant?

Posted By: Max Quordlepleen - 09/21/01 10:59 PM
Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 09/22/01 05:18 AM
JazzO, your question was obviously serious, but, as MaxQ has pointed out, somewhat facetiously, it requires many words or none.

Here's a good place to start:
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/hel/hel.html

I remember a Playboy article from the 1970s sometime dealt specifically with the origins of "a/an", but that was a long time ago.

And before you all leap down my throat about Playboy, let me tell you that in the early days, the articles were written by every good author then writing and the pictures were, um, not very good. Now it seems to be the other way around.

And if any of you has a complete collection of early Playboys I'd really love to hear from you. I'm looking for a short story, I can't remember by whom, called Superboy's School Days or something like that. It was absolutely hilarious. I photocopied it but have since lost it. It was a marvellous spoof, written in Southern dialect.

Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles - 09/22/01 12:09 PM
Roughly when was the article, Capt'n? If you recall enough about it to be able to search out the date, I may be able to find it for you.

Posted By: inselpeter Re: Gender and Articles - 09/22/01 12:27 PM
Cap,

I'm sure you're correct about the quality of writing in Mr. Hefner's mag but, assuming we are roughly contemporaries, you were about 14 years old during that golden era: I have to commend you, you were a far more avid reader than was I.

Jazz,

To the extent you may have been for real: a hut, an 'ommage; an ef-15; an spoken language.

German has three definite articles and three (?--omygod, and I used to speak it!) cases and this allows for all sorts of fun word orders.

Posted By: belMarduk Re: Gender and Articles - 09/22/01 05:11 PM
I agree with you Jazz. It can be confusing when learning an other language. Here, because 90% of the population is French, we often have English people trying to learn the language.

The genders of things is one of the major problems they have since there is no obvious reason why a thing is a she or a he. Why *would a table be a she and a desk a he?

What makes it worse is that all your verb tenses have to be conjugated accordingly (adding 'e' when feminine) - like if we don't have enough verb tenses to contend with.

Playboy

I agree with you there Cap. The fiction and sci-fi used to be really top-notch. I know a lot of sci-fi greats got their big break by writing for Playboy.

Now don't all get in a tizzy about me knowing this. Keep in mind that French people tend to have a different view of about sexuality in general. My mom used to give my dad a subscription to Playboy as birthday gift ever year - until the quality of the articles dropped off and he decided not to get it anymore.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 09/22/01 08:52 PM
The situation is more complicated and nonsensical than you think, Jazz.

For openers, English did at one time have three genders, like German, to which it was similar, but that was Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, which was spoken in England up to the Norman Conquest.

To give you an idea of what it was like: OE had 3 genders (masc., fem. & neuter), 5 cases (nominative, genetive, dative, accusative and instrumental) and 2 numbers, sing. & plural. Nouns had two full declensions (employing all the above) some of which had more than one form, and some partial ones which are mostly exceptions to the regular declensions. All this means that there were hundreds of possible forms a noun (or adjective) could take in being declined, many of which were, of course, the same. The definite article ("the" in modern English) and indefinite article (a, an in ME) were also declined. Verbs were a whole other story, even more complicated.

This is the same story with all ancient European languages in the Indo-European family.. Latin and Greek have the same 3 genders; and gender, except when applied to people or animals, has nothing to do with sex. Obviously, a word for "bull" in any language is masculine and "cow" is feminine. Beyond that, however, grammatical gender is something not well understood. C.S. Lewis, a philologist of note, alluded to this and had no explanations.

As the Western European languages developed, they took on different paths. Most of the Romance Languages, derived from Latin, dropped the neuter gender and wound up with everything being either masculine or feminine. German retained the neuter. German has a peculiarity -- any word with either of the diminutive suffixes "chen" or "lein" is automatically neuter gender. Hence a "Mädchen" (little girl) or Bübchen (little boy) or a Fräulein (young woman, literally little wife) is neuter gender and is, correctly, referred to as "it" if a pronoun is needed for the noun.

What's more, there isn't agreement on gender between the Romance Languages and others. In Italian, French, Spanish, etc. "moon" is feminine and "sun" is masculine; in German it's the other way around. Similarly, Life and Death are feminine in Romance Languages, masculine and neuter, respectively, in German. I don't know about the Slavic languages, but imagine there are the same discrepancies.

Your question is a very good one, one which I have myself often ruminated on and I would also be glad to see some explanations for the mysteries of grammatical gender.




Posted By: Max Quordlepleen - 09/23/01 03:09 AM
Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 09/23/01 04:21 AM
Some further notes, this time about articles, which you also asked about.

Ancient Greek, both Classical and Koine, had the definite article ("the" in English), but no indefinite article (a, an). It was declined through the 3 genders and 4 cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative), singular and plural. In the nominative case, the definite article is Ho (m.) He (f. - spelled with eta, long 'e'), To (n., spelled with omicron, short 'o') in the singular; Hoi, Hai, Ta is the plural. Since there is no indefinite article, it has to be supplied from the context when translating into English.

Latin has no articles, definite or indefinite, so "the" and "a/an" have to supplied when translating. In the rare cases where it is necessary to verbally point out someone or something, "ille" = that, that one, is used where we would use "THE" (with an emphasis). And there are words for "a certain (person, thing)" and such expressions, which were used where we use the indefinite article.

It is another mystery why the Romance languages should have followed Greek and adopted definite articles, along with indefinite articles, when Latin, their mother language had neither. German, of course, did the same, although the German definite article (Der, Die, Das) is unlike the Romance articles (el, il, le, la, l'..., les, los, las, etc.) Russian (and, I presume the other Slavic languages) followed Latin in that it has no articles either. Romanian (a Romance language surrounded by Slavic tongues) has a peculiarity with the definite article. It places it as a suffix on its noun. In the Romanian translation of the famous Socialist motto "Proletarii munduli, Unitivi!" (Proletarians of the world, unite!), the article "ul" is attached to mundo (world) and declined in the genitive singular masculine.

So don't feel bad about the "annoyance" of having to learn those various forms in Spanish. You'd be having it 10 times as bad if you studied German, Old English, Latin and Ancient Greek, as I can attest from personal experience.

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: Gender and Articles - 09/23/01 04:31 AM
So don't feel bad about the "annoyance" of having to learn those various forms in Spanish

I don't. I studied German.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 09/23/01 04:35 AM
In reply to your last question, why we have 'a' or 'an' depending on whether the following noun starts with a vowel or a consonant, it's simply a matter of ease of pronunciation as well as how it sounds. Try eliminating "an" and using 'a' exclusively when speaking (recite or read something to hear yourself). When the following word starts with an vowel (or an 'h') there has to be a very slight hesitation between the two and it sounds gulping or breathy. That's why the 'n' is inserted (and creates 'an'); it makes the words flow smoothly without the hesitation or huffing sound you otherwise get, like when we use 'a' before an aspirated 'h'. ('An' was often used before 'h' in Elizabethan English -- see the Biblical verse referring to "an house not made with hands", but the practice was later dropped.) So its not a matter of grammar, syntax, derivation or philology -- just a practical matter of euphony.

Posted By: Keiva Re: the migratory "n" - 09/23/01 11:27 AM
The "n" of "an" has sometimes migrated over time to the noun. Perhaps oversimplifying a bit:
an apron became a napron, which became a napkin.
To the ear, an apron and a napron would sound almost exactly alike.

Another example is the word "eke", but no in the sense with is, today, its almost-exclusive usage (to eke out a living). Using it older sense:
a shortened name = an eke name, which became a nekename, which became a nickname

Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 09/23/01 11:55 PM
<green> Now don't all get in a tizzy about me knowing this. Keep in mind that French people tend to have a different view about sexuality in general.</green>

Hmmm....is that a different view about sexuality, or about women? French women don't whistle at a good looking men walking down the street. The French don't fequently display men's bodies publically as objects of desire, lust and endless fascination.

Be careful what you call "sexuality."

Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 09/23/01 11:57 PM
Now don't all get in a tizzy about me knowing this. Keep in mind that French people tend to have a different view about sexuality in general.

Hmmm....is that a different view about sexuality, or about women? French women don't whistle at a good looking men walking down the street. The French don't frequently display men's bodies publically as objects of desire, lust and endless fascination.

Be careful what you call "sexuality."

Posted By: Bingley Re: Gender and Articles - 09/24/01 05:13 AM
Jazzo, you're getting off comparatively lightly. From David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (page 91):

Distinctions such as masculine/feminine and human/non-human are well known in setting up sub-classes of nouns, because of their widespread use in European languages. But many Indo-Pacific and African languages far exceed these in the number of noun classes they recognize. In Bantu languages, for example, we find such noun classes as human beings, growing things, body parts, liquids, inanimate objects, animals, kinship names, abstract ideas, artefacts, and narrow objects.

However, these labels should be viewed with caution, as they are no more exact symantically than are the gender classes of European languages.


Bingley
Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 09/24/01 07:48 AM
<green> Now don't all get in a tizzy about me knowing this. Keep in mind that French people tend to have a different view about sexuality in general.</green>

Hmmm....is that a different view about sexuality, or about women? French women don't whistle at a good looking men walking down the street. The French don't fequently display men's bodies publically as objects of desire, lust and endless fascination.

Be careful what you call "sexuality."


Now, while I don't try to set myself up as any kind of expert on the subject of sexuality, I must defend Bel here on a matter of pure logic. She was talking attitudes, you are talking actions. Not the same thing at all! I bet Bel doesn't have to whistle ...


Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 09/24/01 01:11 PM
In Bantu languages, for example, we find such noun
classes as human beings, growing things, body parts, liquids, inanimate objects, animals, kinship names,
abstract ideas, artefacts, and narrow objects. However, these labels should be viewed with caution, as they are no more exact symantically than are the gender classes of European languages.


Fascinating! It brought to mind the distinction in the traditional medicine of many cultures between "hot" and "cold" foods, which has nothing to do with temperature or capsaicin content.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender and Articles in OE - 09/24/01 01:36 PM
3 genders (masc., fem. & neuter), 5 cases (nominative, genetive, dative, accusative and instrumental) and 2 numbers, sing. & plural

It's not even *that simple. There was an occasionally used dual number sandwiched in between singular and plural. It even had its own set of pronouns.

As for "natural" gender in English, The simple word for woman, wif, was neuter and the compound word, wifman (later to be worn down to our Modern English woman), following the Germanic rule of compound words taking the gender of the final element, was masculine.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender and Articles (a/an) - 09/24/01 02:58 PM
That's why the 'n' is inserted (and creates 'an')

Actually® the n was there first and was lost through elision before words starting with a consonant sound (it's even harder to say "an book" than it is to say "a apple"; witness the fact that "a" is the onliest indefinite article in many dialects). The indefinite article was derived from the word for the number 1.

Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles in OE - 09/24/01 05:11 PM
There was an occasionally used dual number sandwiched in between singular and plural. It even had its own set of pronouns.

There's also a dual plural in Hebrew, though to the best of of my limited knowledge it has only one common use. My understanding is:

Normal plurals, meaning "two or more" are formed by adding a suffix, the masculine form of which is pronounced -eem (usually transliterated as -im). The obscure suffix meaning "precisely two" is -ayeem, and is used as below.

In English the preposition behind (behind the table} is also used as a noun [get your behind moving). In Hebrew the equivalent preposition, "tachat", is also pressed into service to mean that same noun -- but the nominative form is tachatayeem.


Posted By: jmh Re: Gender and Articles - 09/26/01 09:30 PM
>assuming we are roughly contemporaries, you were about 14 years old during that golden era: I have to commend you, you were a far more avid reader than was I.

Yes, I'm with inselpeter, if I get his gist, I think that you are thinking of the wrong kind of articles. Come on you guys reading Playboy as a fourteen year old boy, pull the other one!


Posted By: Faldage Re: the migratory "n" - 09/27/01 03:47 PM
I just read the an apron became a napron, which became a napkin part. Actually® it started out as a napron and the n migrated over to the a. A napron is a big one and a napkin is a little one.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Reading Playboy - 09/27/01 03:51 PM
Well, [silent Harrumph®] I, for one, never *read Playboy when I was 14!!!

I just looked at the pictures.

Posted By: Keiva Re: the migratory "n" - 09/27/01 04:04 PM
arpon / napron / napkin
Faldage is right - rechecking my source shows that my recall was wrong, but suggests a longer story.

My source indicates that English took the Old French word naperon (= "little tablecloth") but used it for the larger covering; later the phrase for that large covering changed from "a napron" to "an apron". That source does not indicate, however, how English got "napkin" for the small covering.

Faldage, can you help further?

Posted By: Faldage Re: Helping further - 09/27/01 05:05 PM
how English got "napkin" for the small covering.

I allus thought -on was an augmentive suffix , so I dunno if you're gone believe me. Without consulting the discredited AHD I'd say that the nap part was the root and meant something like hunk of cloth with a protective function against food and the -kin was just the good old English diminutive suffix.

Posted By: Hyla Re: Helping further - 09/27/01 06:05 PM
I'm wondering about situations where the gender of a noun changes its meaning or sense. Spanish has a few words that can take either gender in their article. The only one that comes to mind is mar, the word for "sea," which is usually a masculine noun but is sometimes considered a feminine noun when used in more literary language, and in some idiomatic expressions.

A twist on this is adjectives that only take one gender's ending - an example being the Italian word figo which means "cool," as in "way cool pocket OED, dude" but is only ever given the masculine ending - ending it in an "a" changes it to a noun, and an obscene anatomical reference at that.

Are there cases like this in other languages, where switching the gender can greatly change the meaning?

Posted By: Flatlander Re: Helping further - 09/27/01 06:34 PM
The only one that comes to mind is mar, the word for "sea,"...Are there cases like this in other languages?

IIRC, The German word See means "sea" (as in one of the reputed Seven) when it is one gender (masc?) and "the ocean" (as in the one big one) when another (fem?). Can a better German speaker than I confirm/deny this? Jazzo, it was you wot started the thread...

Posted By: Faldage Re: El vs. La - 09/27/01 06:55 PM
There's other examples from Spanish but I can't think of any.

Posted By: Hyla Re: El vs. La - 09/27/01 07:03 PM
Faldage's inability to think of another example somehow helped me think of another example:

la radio = radio
el radio = radius

Posted By: Jazzoctopus Re: Helping further - 09/27/01 08:50 PM
The German word See means "sea" (as in one of the reputed Seven) when it is one gender (masc?) and "the ocean" (as in the one big one) when another (fem?).

From http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa042098.htm it appears that der See is lake and die See is ocean.

Posted By: of troy Re: Helping further - 09/28/01 01:21 PM
nap still has a meaning related to cloth.. Nap is most evident in velvet, or other textured cloth. If you run your hand on velvet, one way is smooth, the other way, (against the nap) you "fight" the smooth texture.
when making a garment, you want to make sure all the peices have the nap running in the same direction.
since nap reflects light differently, the pieces can appear to be different colors if you don't.

for a very long time, it was common to run nap down, that is, if you smoothed a velvet dress starting from the shoulder the hem, you were going with the nap. Nowday, it has become a style to run the nap up.
In Californian, (and NY) velvet dresses with nap running up are called "feel me up dresses" .(girl talk!)

nap is less notable in machine manufactured cloth, with a few exceptions like velvet, and some crepes. in hand woven cloth, any type weave can have a distinct nap. Woolens and silks are more likely to have naps than plant based cloth. so Nap is a term that has to do with how a peice of fabric lies..

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Peculiar genders - 09/28/01 05:44 PM
An example of confused gender is the Italian word mano = hand. It is declined as if masculine (singular mano, plural mani), but it is actually feminine gender; it takes the feminine form of the articles and any adjectives are declined feminine. As: la mano rossa, le mani rosse. Then there is ala = wing, which is feminine and declined as feminine in the singular but takes the masculine form in the plural, as in the famous operatic aria, L'amor sull'ali rosee.

Posted By: Bingley Re: Helping further - 09/29/01 03:21 AM
In reply to:

nap still has a meaning related to cloth


Diapers are usually known as nappies in the UK. Presumably related somehow.

Bingley

Posted By: rodward Re: Peculiar genders - 10/01/01 11:03 AM
An example of confused gender
and continuing the discussion from I&A on confusion of posters' gender*, (Hyla, Keiva, et al) I too have made this error. In my case, I think it is because I associate names ending in the letter "A" with females (Anna, Belinda, Melissa, and others). In particular there are male names which are feminised by the addition of an "A", Robert to Roberta, Robin to Robina, for example. Spanish (and the other Latin languages I think) has examples of words where the masculine form ends in an "O" and the feminine in an "A" - el niño, la niña. So this linguistic prejudice of mine overflows into board handles I'm afraid.

*posters' gender. Is that correct, each poster presumably having only one gender, or should that be "posters' genders" anyway?

Posted By: Keiva Re: confused genders - 10/01/01 11:43 AM
Apologies for any confusion my board-name engendered. I trust my postings have clarified.

(BTW, Keiva was the everyday nickname of my grandfather, for whom I was named.)

Posted By: rodward Re: confused genders - 10/01/01 12:17 PM
Keiva offers apologies for any confusion his board-name engendered

Oh I don't think you need apologise, Ken. Firstly, the fault is ours (or at least mine in thought) and secondly, misunderstandings of gender are the basis of many a good farce. I was just trying to place a linguistic basis for the confusion.


Posted By: consuelo Why not Consuela? - 10/01/01 09:12 PM
Consuelo is one of the irregularities in Spanish. It is a feminine name derived from a verb, as opposed to a noun i.e, Rosa-rose, Concha-shell, or a saint. The verb is consolar, to console. El consuelo n. is what you get from the act of consoling, consolation. It is an act of comforting, accepting that commiseration and a sharing of strength are necessary to one's well-being. Although I know that there must be men out there that are good at consolation, it seems that most women have a greater facility with it, whether it be kissing boo-boos or holding a grief-stricken friend. Men tend to want to fix the problems rather than share the feelings. [running fast to escape flying vegetables-e]Hah! You missed me!

Posted By: inselpeter Re: Why not Consuela? - 10/02/01 12:10 AM
<<Concha-shell,

That would be Conchita, which I was called an Argentinian girlfriend in fun. "What did you call me?!!" she said as she slapped my face in fun. For it means something other than shell in Usuaia. [running to escape the flying cut fig-e]

Posted By: consuelo FOOD FIGHT! - 10/02/01 12:20 AM
Well, alright! In Mexico, Conchita is a conchita, no more, no less. Believe me, I learned all my "bad words" from artists, musicians, and college students(remember, adventure is my middle name?). However, I am aware that each spanish speaking culture has their own dialectic naughties, and I can see how conchita leaves itself wide open for that![ducks even lower-flying oysters?!]

Posted By: Keiva Re: FOOD FIGHT! - 10/02/01 12:25 AM
conchita leaves itself wide open for ...
I dasn't comment; I merely report, in a blue note.

Posted By: Faldage Re: FOOD FIGHT! - 10/02/01 01:57 PM
Or as Cristina, the hostess of el show Cristina, said, catching a bus in Cuba means doing nasty and illegal things to children in Mexican (or is it vice versa)

Posted By: consuelo el show Cristina - 10/02/01 08:17 PM
As far as I know, as that is not a term I'm familiar with, I vote for it being Cuban or sumpin'. Of course even artists, musicians, and college students draw the line at talking about that subject in mixed company, so [shrugging, clicks on next thread].

Posted By: kirky Re: Peculiar genders - 10/03/01 12:31 AM
In Italian (as other Latin language cultures), there are many paired names, where the ending indicates the gender: Maria/Mario Francesca/Francesco Jacinta/Jacinto Fabrizia/Fabrizio Sandra/Sandro Paula/Paulo etc etc.
Then there are some that are disctinctly masculine or feminine, but don't have a corresponding pair: Marco, Fiorella, Laura, Sara. etc , but these still follow the a-for-feminine and o-for masculine rules.

The names I find particularly confusing are the masculine names that end in 'a' : eg Luca, Andrea and Nicola
Some-one told me that they are different because they come from Greek roots. Can anyone verify this?



Posted By: kirky Re: Peculiar genders - 10/03/01 12:53 AM
In reply to:

An example of confused gender is the Italian word mano = hand. It is declined as if masculine (singular mano, plural mani), but it is actually feminine gender



Many of the Italian words for parts of the body are irregular, in their plural forms and/or gender. A fact I as pleased to be able to point out to my English students in Italy when they complained about the irregular spelling and/or plurals of so many of the English words in the same lexical set!

Some examples:
Italian for lip: labbro (sing, masc); while lips: labbra (plur, fem)

Italian for foot: piede (sing,fem); feet: peidi (plu, fem)

While in English we have irregular plurals and some of the most irrational spellings:
tooth teeth
foot feet
eye (spelling!)
tongue (spelling!)
-etc




Posted By: Jackie Re: Peculiar genders - 10/03/01 01:36 AM
Kirky, I don't really know anything about your topic, but I would like to welcome you to the board. Glad to have you.

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: Helping further - 10/03/01 02:26 AM
One example from French.

La vase (femenine)= mud
Le vase (masculine) = vase

Earlier, much earlier, a post mentioned the troubles that anglos have learning French because of the gender issue. To highlight the fact that English is not the only language that makes no sense at times, I cite the following two examples:

Le féminisme (masculine) and la masculinité (feminine).

On a slightly off-topic note: One thing that annoys me is how perfectly good words with inherent gender are being dropped from common usage. I keep hearing various women being refered to as actors yet they strive to win the academy award for best actress.

Posted By: Bingley Re: Helping further - 10/03/01 05:11 AM
Welcome back Rouspeteur. You've been gone too long.

Bingley
Posted By: Faldage Re: el show Cristina - 10/03/01 01:42 PM
Cojer la guagua* (to be read in whichever dialect it means to catch the bus so as not to offend the sensibilities of the more delicate among us).

*No intent to incite or abet any illegal actions is implied nor should any be inferred.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Actors/actresses - 10/03/01 02:06 PM
It's not only actresses who have been demanding the right to have their profession called by the same word used by males, and receiving same from media who are less concerned about the language than about sucking up to the people who help them sell their papers, commercials, etc. These females, who would seem to trying to get people to ignore the fact that they are female, claim that it's demeaning to them to have a different word, or a different form of a word, applied to one sex/gender. This is not a linguistic issue, it's a matter of PC (political correctness), which is at the root of many horrible linguistic practices.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Italian males in 'a' - 10/03/01 02:13 PM
I don't think the Greek origin of words such as Andrea is the issue. There are Italian nouns ending in 'a', such as poeta = poet, which are masculine. I think it more likely that such words, especially when they denote a profession, are remnants of the Latin First Conjugation, where nouns of any gender end in 'a' in the masc. sing. nominative. One of the first sentences learned in Latin I is Marcus est agricola = Marcus is a farmer.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Actors/actresses - 10/03/01 02:22 PM
This is not a linguistic issue, it's a matter of PC (political correctness)...

From a linguistic point of view the question is whether there is a meaningful difference between what the word means when applied to a male and when applied to a female.

We easily refer to them as doctors whether they are male or female. Some may prefer one sex over the other for purely individual reasons (and when we are talking about an individual's well being they can easily be valid reasons, on an individual level), but no one ever seems to think that it would be proper to refer to doctor vs. doctress (or doctrix). The erstwhile stewardess became the flight attendant when the occupation started getting a large number of males filling positions. As with the doctor, except for individual preferences the job done by a male is not in anyway different from that done by a female. In cases where it does make a difference (and other than, perhaps sex worker, or even actor/actress, I can't think of any just right off hand) there may be a reason to have a separate word.

Posted By: consuelo Re: el show Cristina - 10/03/01 02:26 PM
Cojer, I know[artists, musicians, students,etc.] but guagua meaning bus is a Cuban thang, according to my Pequeño Larousse. It also means a suckling child[in American hispanic culture] a spice similar to cayenne pepper[cuban usage], a small type of pig[cuban usage again, probably from whence reference to suckling child comes from]. It is also some sort of amphibious rodent of the Americas[muskrat, maybe?]In Ecuador, and apparently only in Ecuador, this word can take either a masculine or feminine article to make it gender specific.[Whew! made it back to the actual topic!]

[bold]GUAGUA[/bold] f. cosa baladí | Amer. Nene, rorro, niño de teta. (En el Ecuador es común de dos, y se dice: el guagua o la guagua) Col. Roedor anfibio de América Cub. Especie de ají Cub. especie de cochinilla Cub. y Can. Autobús [italics] de guagua[/italics], gratis, de balde.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Italian males in 'a' - 10/03/01 02:30 PM
poeta, agricola, nauta

Poeta and nauta are from the Greek and at least the agr- of agricola is also from the Greek.

Posted By: Faldage Re: el show Cristina - 10/03/01 02:37 PM
Cristina was interviewed on NPR recently regarding her talk show. She was using cojer la guagua as an example of trying to communicate politely with Hispanophones of many provenances simultaneously.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 10/03/01 02:43 PM
Now that we have had a good bit of discussion, which I have enjoyed, about the wierdness of grammatical gender, I have to put in a plug for clearly defined gender.

The lack of any indication of gender in 99% of cases in modern English is perhaps a shortcoming. In situations when it may be desirable to indicate gender, you usually have to resort to some sort of periphrasis, often clumsy.

For example: When Charles de Gaulle started a speech, he opened with, "François et Françoises!" (Frenchmen and Frenchwomen!). I suppose that in Canada one would start with "Canadiens et Canadiennes" or "Québecois et Québecoises" and if one were addressing an American audience in French, "Américains et Américaines". But when the President starts one of those speeches televised from the Oval Office, it starts, "My fellow Americans" and has to cover both genders. The French examples above make it clear the orator is addressing his fellow countrymen of each sex/gender specifically and individually. To do this in English is not possible except by importing some noun that does have specific gender and constructing something, like perhaps, My brothers and sisters throughout America, or some such tripe.

The question asks itself, Is there any necessity to specify gender except in rare cases? Are we not beyond putting people in little boxes and avoiding unnecessary labels? Should we be paying much attention to sex/gender?

The answer to that is, I think perhaps a cart/horse or chicken/egg situation. It may be that other nationalities are more aware of gender and the differences between the sexes than we precisely because their language makes clear differentiations between the genders. And we English speakers are in the forefront of the movement towards androgeny and eliminating the differences between the sexes maybe partly because our language makes it easy to ignore gender.

What do y'all think?

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender and Articles - 10/03/01 02:52 PM
What do y'all think?

Back in the good old days we only had two genders; animate and inanimate.

"The only men's jobs and women's jobs are those which actually *require a penis or a vagina."

Posted By: consuelo flippant? or serious? - 10/03/01 02:58 PM
FLIPPANT ANSWER: I HAVE NEVER IGNORED A GENDER IN MY LIFE.

I think that gender differentiation is necessary. I am female and I don't like that fact to be ignored. What I do object to is treatment that is sub-standard because of my gender.

Posted By: Faldage Re: gender? or sex? - 10/03/01 03:01 PM
Course, then there's those of us who take great umbrage at the confusion of gender and sex. Remember, the word woman is historically masculine.

Posted By: consuelo Ribs - 10/03/01 03:25 PM
Reminds me of a joke.
God pays a visit, routine check-up, on Adam. God says"How's everything with you. Happy here?" Adam says,"Great place. I particularly like what you did with the garden here, but I only have one teeny complaint. I have noticed that all the animals here have mates. Will I be given one?" God slaps his forehead and says"D'oh! I forgot all about that! I'll tell you what. How would you like a beautiful woman, curved just right, one that will obey your every wish and take care of all your needs before you even know you have them." Adam says"Gee, that sounds great. What's the catch?" God says, "Well, it's gonna cost you an arm and a leg." Adam thinks about it for awhile and says"What can I get for a rib?"(bah-dum-dum)

Posted By: of troy Re: Gender and Articles - 10/03/01 04:06 PM
RE:The lack of any indication of gender in 99% of cases in modern English is perhaps a shortcoming. In situations when it may be desirable to indicate gender, you usually have to resort to some sort of periphrasis, often clumsy.

why? if i want a lawyer-- i want the best-- be it a man or a woman. gender as faldage points out, make no difference 99.9% percent of the time..

and while i can understand consuelo concerns, what i find objectionable, is, the real thing is male, and the femine form has an ending similar to many suffixes that are used as diminutives.. a Luncheon is a rather formal lunch, but a luncheonette is so casual, it is below a diner!
So it is not just being politicaly correct to say that an air pilot an- Aviator, is a skilled person, and a woman who does the same (pilots an aircraft!) is no less skilled-- so her title should be the same.. and not some sort of diminutive title-- avaitrix

when theater started, all actors where male... actress implies something less than the usual acting company.

i think that if men where subjected to this sort of treatment regularly, they would find it objectionable..

i have worked in male dominated fields.. and spent years, looking at the started faces of people who ask--"you? You're going to .*...? Wow, i never see a female do that* before.. !" and the wierd things i did? set up computers (unbox, plug in, connect to network, and down load some files.. ) nothing really physically hard.. but while computer programing is pretty unisex, 10 year ago, computer technology was still pretty much dominated by men. (its changing and becoming more unisex too)

the stereotyping is real, and language can re-enforce it. Does it matter who carries your coffee to you? and if it doesn't why do you call one person a waiter, and the other a waitress.. why not just a server? and why a diminutive title for the woman --the job/work doesn't change-- why should the title?
an other rant might include the fact, that while the job/work doesn't change, the compensation often does.. and waiters are often paid more than waitress. and so on down the line.. the highest paid actors are never actresses.. hmm? which would you want to be? an $100,000 actor or a $85,000 actress?


Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles - 10/03/01 04:10 PM
Faldage says, "The only men's jobs and women's jobs are those which actually *require a penis or a vagina."
Definition should perhaps be broadened a bit to include the ancient and honorable profession of wet-nurse.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender and Articles - 10/03/01 04:19 PM
the ancient and honorable profession of wet-nurse.


Good point, Keiva.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Gender rant - 10/03/01 06:09 PM
Well, Helen, I certainly agree with you about how women have been, and still are, always gypped vis-a-vis men by society, but I don't think you can blame that on feminine suffixes in the language. The root of that evil is, as in so many cases, filthy lucre or the desire thereof.

Actually, some women would, I think, have more reason to complain than English-speakers. Take the German damsels who are relegated to being neuter gender, mere things, because the noun which describes them has a diminutive suffix. (See earlier post in this thread.) But then, German has a little leg up for the ladies. A married woman whose husband is one of a number of professionals takes her husband's title. The wife of Dr. Schmidt is known, and addressed, as Frau Doktor Schmidt; Prof. Schwartz' wife is Frau Professor Schwartz; the wife of engineer Krautkopf is Frau Engenieur Krautkopf, etc. However, the wife of Assistant Gas Main Inspector Katzenellenbogen is known as Frau Katzenellenbogen, not Frau Untergashauptleitungsinspektor Kaztenellenbogen, not because she couldn't fit it on her calling card, but because it's not a prestigious title. Thus, a German woman gains prestige from her husband's position if it's exalted enough, and back in the days when such things counted, went down to dinner before other non-titled ladies.

In an ideal world, we could have gender-specific words and descriptive titles, and they would be just that, and no more, with no effects on social status, rates of pay and such other non-linguistic matters.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender rant - 10/03/01 06:16 PM
German has a little leg up for the ladies. A married woman whose husband is one of a number of professionals takes her husband's title

And, of course, if she has earned the title on her own we can always just assume that she got it by virtue [sic] of being married to the "real" holder of the title.

Posted By: Anonymous Re: Down to dinner - 10/03/01 08:41 PM
Thus, a German woman gains prestige from her husband's position if it's exalted enough, and back in the days when such things counted, went down to dinner before other non-titled ladies.[EA]

What a *great post, BYB - the perfect mixture of information and entertainment. 'tis posts such as this which keep me coming back to AWAD.

I'm curious about the phrase I bolded; how does one go "down to dinner"? Is this in the context of a restaurant, and being seated before someone of lower stature?

Posted By: Rouspeteur Re: Gender rant - 10/03/01 09:21 PM
Gee. So many things to respond to.

>>>I certainly agree with you about how women have been, and still are, always gypped vis-a-vis men by society,

Women are not always cheated by men (to be really PC, for gypped has its origin in Gypsy). There are inequalities and imbalances in all societies and men are not treated equally either. Women don't get executed for murder, don't get drafted, and can get out of the military by getting pregnant. Boys are put on ritalin at much higher rates and score lower on standardised tests, and have higher drop-out rates with nary a male-oriented program to help them. The Canadian government has a hiring policy to encourage women in non-traditional jobs like engineering and computer science and yet there are no programs to encourage men to become clerks, nurses, or teachers - professions that are heavily female.

In some cases language can have an effect and shape people's judgement but there are limits as to how far this argument can be extended. I have my doubts about actresses getting paid less just because they are called actresses. More likely it has to do with the fact that <most> men will only go to see a "chick" flick when they have to (i.e. when dating or an anniversary), otherwise its explosions and car chases that rule the day. How did, for example, Terminator 2 do against Thelma and Louise?

Not every gender difference has to do with discrimination some are based on real, quantifiable differences. I don't think that it is coincidence that feminine products and laundry soap are advertised during soap operas and beer and pickup trucks are advertised during football.

To finish this rant, an snippet from the Book of Heroic Failures by Stephen Pile. Under the heading of "The Least Successful Equal Pay Advertisement" was the story of how, several decades ago, when Ireland was joining the EU they were told that no longer could they pay men and women different amounts for the same job. The Irish government put out an advertisement for the position of Equal Pay Commissioner with, you guessed it, two different pay scales, one for men and one for women.

End of counter-rant.

Rouspeteur (not to be confused with mon épouse, la Rouspeteuse)

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Down to dinner - 10/04/01 02:29 PM
Gymkhana, glad to hear you enjoy the board and hope to hear more from you.

In the 19th century and early part of the 20th, the dinner party was a prominent part of life in the upper middle and higher classes, in the UK and to a lesser extent in the US.

The drill for a dinner party was that the guests assembled, around 7:00 p.m., in the drawing room of the host, where they mingled and made light conversation until time for dinner. Meanwhile, the hostess was greeting and chatting and pairing up the guests to go to dinner, letting each one know whom he would be escorting to the table. When the butler announced that dinner was served, the host took the arm of the highest ranking lady and led the way, followed by the hostess with the highest ranking man, followed by the next highest ranking man with the next highest ranking lady, etc.

In a Town [i.e., London] house, the dining room was always on the ground floor, the drawing room on the [English] first floor [US 2nd floor], so one literally went down to dinner. In a country house, where the drawing room would be on the ground floor across the hall from the dining room, one went in to dinner.

The rules of precedence by which the rankings were determined were rigid and invariable and every hostess had to know them inside out. It would be not only an embarassment of the first order, but a positive insult, to allow a lower ranking guest to precede a higher ranking one. This could get really complicated if you had a very mixed company, say with a Colonel of the Blues, the grandson of a marquess, a Baronet, the Dean of Barchester, a barrister who was a QC, an MP, their respective wives, plus the widow of an earl's son and a Harley Street physician who was a knight.

BTW, my information on this, and other recherché data on life as we see it in Jane Austen, Trollope, Dickens, et al., comes from one of my favorite books, which I highly recommend: What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist -- the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England by Daniel Pool. Simon & Schuster 1993

Posted By: wofahulicodoc unpaired gender-specific names - 10/04/01 05:31 PM
In Italian... there are many paired names, where the ending indicates the gender: Maria/Mario Francesca/Francesco ...etc etc.

Then there are some that are disctinctly masculine or feminine, but don't have a corresponding pair: Marco, ***Fiorella,*** Laura, Sara. etc, etc ...


Are our memories too short (I'd prefer to think we're too young, instead) to recall Fiorello LaGuardia?

And where does Marcia fit in this schema?



Posted By: kirky Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 04:47 AM
Earlier Bobyoungbalt commented on the advantage or otherwise of being able to cleary indicate gender in English:
In reply to:

Now that we have had a good bit of discussion, which I have enjoyed, about the wierdness of grammatical gender, I have to put in a plug for clearly defined gender.
The lack of any indication of gender in 99% of cases in modern English is perhaps a shortcoming. In situations when it may be desirable to indicate gender, you usually have to resort to some sort of periphrasis, often clumsy.


When I was living in Italy, I remember being frustrated that the ambiguity present in English was not available when I made the statement that I was "going out to dinner with a friend". Sometimes I want the listener be left wondering whether my 'friend' was male of female! In italian you have to say "la mia amica" or "il mio amico" , indicating female or male respectively.

Conversely, I found it very strange to use the masculine plural "amici" to indicte a mixed gender group.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 01:34 PM
Kirky finds it strange that a plural of mixed gender should always take the masculine form.

Well, that's been one of the whines of the feminist movement. It is a fact that in every Indo-European language I know anything about that when you have a mixed plural or a word with an indeterminate gender, the default form is the masculine. It gets more strange in the Romance languages without the neuter gender. In French, it is always "he" who rains or beams sunnily, as in "Il pleut, il fait beau." Same in Italian, but since the pronoun is usually omitted, it's not obvious.

The feminists' wrath against the use of "he" as the default for the indeterminate pronoun is the cause of the new use of the plural pronoun instead. There are plenty of us old-timers who hate this usage although having some (not much) sympathy with the ladies. I do not like a usage like "If anyone wants a cup of coffee, they will have to go to the kitchen for it." But this has become so common that now it's getting to be a mindless reflex and you have outrages like "If any new mother wants home nurse visits, they will have to call the Home Service Dept." Or, "If any father wants to sign up as a coach, they need to see Joe Smith." I have actually, and more than once, heard such a sentence used by newscasters. It has got to the point where this neologistic plural is used for all purposes, even where there is only one gender involved.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 02:14 PM
the new use of the plural pronoun ... There are plenty of us old-timers who hate this usage...

Thou art one, Byb? YART

Ænigma likes Olduvai for old-timers. Talk about being Anthropologically Correct!

Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 03:01 PM
I think that gender differentiation is necessary. I am female and I don't like that fact to be ignored. What I do object to is treatment that is sub-standard because of my gender.

The contention of feminists rejecting the gender-specific article is that gender differentiation must occur before discrimination can set in. Eliminate one prerequisite and you've stalled the discrimination process.

I come from a 93% female profession (nursing) where gender association , (not outright gender distinction) dissuades more men from entering our ancient and esteemed calling. A male colleague of mine suggested, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, that a name not synonymous with breastfeeding would enhance the percentage of men attracted to our profession. Ah, the power of language.




Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Pronouns - 10/05/01 03:28 PM
Brother Faldage inquireth, "Thou art one, Byb [who disdaineth 'they' for 'he']?"

Yea, marry, forsooth, that I be. Fight the good fight for your rights, my ladies faire, and I'm with you. But ye wenches that would brawl in the streets, aroint ye! And yart me no yarts! Have respect to the integrity of our ancient and honourable tongue!

Here endeth the BYB indeterminate pronoun rant, once for all.

Posted By: Jackie Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 04:07 PM
that a name not synonymous with breastfeeding would enhance the percentage of men attracted to our profession. Good heavens, Teresa--I'll bet he's right! Did he have any suggestions?

(Special for BobY) And if any man wants to offer a suggestion, they can see BYB. [scampering hurriedly out of reach e]Sorry, Sweetie, I just couldn't resist an opportunity like that.)

Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 04:18 PM
No, Jackie, he didn't. "Nursing" has been so long associated with caregiving, and accepted as the title of our profession, that maybe what should change is the association of nursing with breastfeeding. This might be easier to achieve. We already have breastfeeding, suckling and lactating to describe the act of giving, producing or receiving human milk, but we have no synonyms for nursing as a profession.

Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 04:19 PM
A male colleague of mine suggested, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, that a name not synonymous with breastfeeding would enhance the percentage of men attracted to our profession.

I have got to pass that on to my wife, who teaches nursing.
aside: how different the above sentence would be without the comma!

About 20 years ago, the elderly Father who was then President of DePaul University commented to her that Nursing must be somehow less than the school's other academic fields, in that the others do not end in -ing: there is no "sciencing"; "englishing", etc. He was brought up short when someone pointed out "engineering".
he would not have understood had someone mentioned "frenching"
Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 09:11 PM
Of course, getting away from the digressions, we could simplify the language even more by taking all gender references out, particularly pronouns. Sentences would read like "The woman went shopping and it bought a new pair of knickers". Perfectly logical, and totally understandable, I would have thought. And that would get rid of the whole gender-related shambles!

Posted By: teresag Re: Gender and Articles - 10/05/01 09:18 PM
But, Capital Kiwi, Pooh-Bah that you are, what if she took her dog?

"The woman and her dog went shopping and it bought a new pair
of knickers".

Posted By: of troy Re: Gender and Articles - 10/06/01 12:05 AM
which would brings us closer to japanese.. japanese pronouns are gender neutral. and just as japanese speaking english tend to say fright for flight they also tend to say "the man went shopping and she bought a new suit" She is close to sho-- which is an honorable term for a man, (as in Sho gun) and Sho can also be a mans name.
the problems doesn't come in japanese, because they use one pronoun-- for men, women and dogs..

and teresa, when the dog starts carrying a credit card, i will start to wonder who it was that was buying the the knickers, but i realize it could be confusing. my sister has to pay strict attention in conversational japanese to keep track of who is it in any given conversation!

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 10/06/01 06:31 AM
Oh, hell, why bring logic into it? Ever heard of context? Okay, Teresa, here goes:

Your original sentence: The woman and her dog went shopping and it bought a new pair of knickers

You will retrospectively note, of course, that you used a gender-laden pronoun - her.

My perfectly logical response. Rewrite (correcting your pronoun on the way) as:

The woman(1) and its(1) dog(2)* went shopping, and it(1) bought a pair of new knickers.

Now, isn't that much more neat and tidy and totally understandable? Why can't all English be as clear and easy to follow, hmmm?

* Although dogs going shopping are definitely a rarity, whichever sex they are. Or so I believe. Well, in New Zealand anyway. And I haven't noticed many ... erp, any ... here in Pommyland, either.



Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles - 10/06/01 02:00 PM
The woman(1) and its(1) dog(2)* went shopping, and it(1) bought a pair of new knickers.
Now, isn't that much more neat and tidy and totally understandable? Why can't all English be as clear and easy to follow, hmmm?

But CapK, your reconstuction only works because of the specific facts of that particular sentence. It wouldn't work, for example, with:
The woman(1) and its husband went shopping, and it bought a pair of new pants.
Whose pants would they be: a pair of "his" pants, or "hers" pants? Whichever you say, how would you alter the sentence if you intended to say the opposite? Yes, it can be done, but only with awkwardness.


Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 10/07/01 04:17 AM
But using my method you wouldn't write it that way. Any formal language must make its references absolutely clear. Therefore you would write (or say):

The woman(1) and its husband(2) went shopping, and it(1) bought a pair of new pants.

There you are - clear as a bell! Where's your problem?


Posted By: Keiva Re: Gender and Articles - 10/07/01 12:22 PM
But consider some further implications:

If the woman is the purchaser you must say,
The woman and its husband went shopping, and it bought a pair of new pants.
While if the man is the purchaser, you must say,
The man and its wife went shopping, and it bought a pair of new pants.

This creates at least two problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First, you can't gracefully handle a more complex situation, where the second clause covers both people. Such as
The woman and her husband went shopping, and she bought him a new pair of pants. or
The woman and its husband went shopping, and he bought a shirt while she bought pants.
If you lack gender-specific pronouns, you must resort to clumsy substitution of "the former" and "the latter".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second and more important: even in the simpler sentences, your phrasing of the first clause commits you to the meaning of the second, even before the second is uttered. Imagine the difficulty in an ongoing conversation, where each idea leads to another. E.g., two women chatting:

"Marge and John went shopping."
"Where?"
"At the mall. There was a *delicious sale."
"Did they buy anything?"
"Yes, it bought a new pair of pants."

"Who did? I can't remember exactly how you phrased your first sentence before."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doesn't gender in pronouns make it far easier to minimize such confusion?

Posted By: Bingley Re: Gender and Articles - 10/08/01 02:59 AM
The Indonesian third-person singular pronoun dia is common to both genders. They're quite happy to repeat the noun if there is any ambiguity.

Bingley
Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Gender and Articles - 10/08/01 06:48 AM
Keiva, I think you're missing my point.

Posted By: Keiva Re: Da point - 10/08/01 02:55 PM
Could be, boss Cap'n! I can tell you, though, that I often become confused by wife's conversation, with trouble following whom she means when she refers to "he" or "she" when telling me of a story with multiple he's and she's. I shudder to think how hopelessly befuddled I'd be if all the he's and she's were replaced by it's, leaving out even the gender-clue to meaning.

But then, I befuddle easily!

Posted By: Bingley Re: Da point - 10/09/01 04:20 AM
According to David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language some languages have fourth person forms. The example he gives is from Cree where if you are speaking of two male characters, one would be na:pe:w and the other na:pewa . Would that help?

Bingley
Posted By: Bean Re: Gender and Articles - 10/09/01 11:20 AM
The woman(1) and its husband went shopping, and it bought a pair of new pants.

We already have an equally confusing type of sentence, with no contrived pronoun-switching:

The woman and her sister went shopping, and she bought a new pair of pants.

Who did? (Probably "the woman".) We can usually manage to work it out when we actually use such a sentence in real life.

Having gender-specific pronouns in English only helps in some cases. Anyway, Turkish has the non-gender specific pronoun thing - only "it" - no "he" or "she". So I've become used to my Turkish friend referring to her mother as "he" and her husband as "she" occasionally - it breaks the flow when she stops to think about the pronoun - and I know her well enough to interpolate the errors. I am inclined to see her side of the argument...the "he" and "she" don't necessarily clear things up all the time! Try going to an all-girls' school! All your stories degenerate into "her" and "she", with much extra clarification needed.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Formal language, Schmormal language! - 10/09/01 02:35 PM
If I catch you throwing numbers around like that when you're talking to me in a pub, I'm sending you right back to Zild! The hard way!

If I catch you throwing numbers around like that when you're talking to me in a pub, I'm sending you right back to Zild! The hard way!

Will I be able to get my tongue out of my cheek first, sah?

Posted By: jmh Re: Gender and Articles - 10/10/01 06:08 AM
>The woman(1) and its husband went shopping, and it bought a pair of new pants.

So, given that the heading is "gender and articles", do the articles under discussion have to be ... em ... underwear?


Posted By: Bingley Re: Gender and Articles - 10/10/01 06:28 AM
I think it was Winston Churchill who said of Lambeth Palace, "40 bedrooms and only 39 articles to put in them."

Bingley
Posted By: Faldage Re: Formal language, Schmormal language! - 10/10/01 12:18 PM
The woman(1) and its husband(2) went shopping, and it(1)...

The Language formerly known as Loglan used this convention; pronouns were marked (by vowel choice) to indicate their respective referents in the order those referents appeared in the sentence.

The Language formerly known as Loglan used this convention; pronouns were marked (by vowel choice) to indicate their respective referents in the order those referents appeared in the sentence.

Here, not so much of the "formerly", thanks very much! It's still alive and kicking. See: http://www.loglan.org/ to see just how kicking.

I first dealt with artificial constructs within natural languages when I was doing my post-grad dissertation and I was trying to determine syntactic referents programmatically. I came across a reference to Loglan in the university library, and although it really wasn't much help with what I was doing, I found it absolutely fascinating.

Loa!

Posted By: Faldage Re: Formally known as - 10/10/01 01:12 PM
I was first introduced to Loglan (The name is not a legal word in the language, as I remember it) time back way back before the bad time. I had occasion to revisit it recently and found that there had come a splinter group which called their version Lojban (which is a legal word in *that language) which I always want to call Logjam. http://www.lojban.org/ This website seems to suggest that it is *not a splinter group.

Da bi slivi

Posted By: plutarch Re: Gender and Articles - 10/11/01 03:44 AM
Why would a table be a "she" and a desk a "he", you say? A table is a fixture we associate with graces and pleasures, especially a dining room table. A "desk", on the other hand, is a fixture we associate with work. (For instance, a desktop computer belongs on a desk not a table.) The French understand such things, I think. Hence, it is not the pieces themselves, but the emotions which men have attached to those pieces which explains the choice of gender. If women had had any say in the matter, a table, in particular, a dining room table, would have been a "him" not a "her". I continue you enjoy my dining room table as a "her" but I have learned to remove my dirty dishes at the end of the meal.

Posted By: plutarch Re: Gender and Articles - 10/11/01 03:44 AM
Why would a table be a "she" and a desk a "he", you say? A table is a fixture we associate with graces and pleasures, especially a dining room table. A "desk", on the other hand, is a fixture we associate with work. (For instance, a desktop computer belongs on a desk not a table.) The French understand such things, I think. Hence, it is not the pieces themselves, but the emotions which men have attached to those pieces which explains the choice of gender. If women had had any say in the matter, a table, in particular, a dining room table, would have been a "him" not a "her". I continue to enjoy my dining room table as a "her" but I have learned to remove my dirty dishes at the end of the meal.

Posted By: plutarch Re: Gender and Articles - 10/11/01 03:48 AM
Why would a table be a "she" and a desk be a "he", you say? A table is a fixture we associate with graces and pleasures, especially a dining room table. A "desk", on the other hand, is a fixture we associate with work. (For instance, a desktop computer belongs on a desk not a table.) The French understand such things, I think. Hence, it is not the pieces themselves, but the emotions which men have historically attached to those pieces which elucidate the choice of gender. If women had had any say in the matter, a table, in particular, a dining room table, would have been a "him" not a "her", don't you think. I continue to enjoy my dining room table as a "her" but I have learned to remove my dirty dishes at the end of the meal.

Posted By: plutarch Re: Gender and Articles - 10/11/01 03:59 AM
Oops! I'm a "stranger" here ... and it shows. Guess I haven't got the hang of posting yet. Sorry for repeating the same message 3 times.

Posted By: Bobyoungbalt Re: Gender and Articles - 10/11/01 02:58 PM
You can delete the duplicate postings. There is a button for "delete this post" at the top of the posting to the right of the title. Only the one who wrote the post can use it.

Actually, I was wrong there -- the button is "edit this post." When you click it you have the choice to edit or delete.