<html>
Jill you are not really wrong, but basically right. although I don't know
about "patriarchal English". You still did not get to the L
variant of the word, however, which is only a dissimilative way of
saying "grammar". We grammarians tend to feel that grammar is
still magic. As for prophet, prophetess is an explicit female
derivative.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Getting
to gramarye, used for grammar schools too:from my folksong repertoire,
"There was a woman, she lived alone; some babies she had three; she
sent them off to the north counterey; to learn their gramarye" .
This is a sad song, you know it? Next verse: "They hadn't been
there, but about three weeks; about three weeks and a day; when that cold
death spread abroad in the land, and swep' her babes away." No
grammatical sorcery here, just life... Sorry for grandstanding, but I
don't think "grammar" vs. "glamour" has much in it
for feminist purposes.... Yours, Karl<br>
<br>
At 08:18 AM 11/12/99 -0800, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>I thought that grammer comes from the Latin
word "grammatica" which means pertaining to letters or
literature, so that in the middle ages it was synonymous with learning in
general, especially the knowledge particular to the learned class
(male). Then the Old French word "grimoire" (book of
magic) was introduced into the literary language by Sir Walter Scott, so
the word "gramarye" was a corrupt form of grammar that became
associated with witchcraft (female). To cast a glamour meant the
incantation of enchantment and spells. Were the grammars of
patriarchal English actually glamours: rules invented to
describe men's ideas of how language ought to behave?<br>
<br>
How did I go so wrong? <br>
<br>
I'm also wondering about the word prophet, which isn't defined as being
male only, but includes prophetess after the definition. Would that
be gendered?<br>
<br>
<b><i>"Karl V. Teeter" <kvt@FAS.HARVARD.EDU></b></i>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Dear Jill, your speculation is interesting, but I fear it is not supported by the etymologies of grammar and glamour. These are variants of the same word and associated because in the middle ages grammar was one of the seven lively arts, and as such inherently mystical, and glamorous. Some linguists still find it so and not, I think, on a gender-related basis. Yours, kvt (=Karl V.Teeter, Professor of Linguistics, Emeritus, Harvard University<br>
At 08:25 AM 11/11/99 -0800, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>I am an artist interested in how language defines the image of women portrayed an art and women artitsts. I want to study how the etymology of several words exclude her from the definition of artist and limit ther to being an object on display. However, I am not a linguist and I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me. I think that from the histories of <u>grammer</u> and <u>glamour </u>it is evident that the patriarchal culture continues: man acts; woman is acted upon; <u>hero</u> saves <u>heroine</u>. The <u>muse </u>of the <u>artistic genius</u> is a <u>fetished </u>female <u>fantasy</u>. I don't want to intrude on your listserve, but I have been following it since last spring and I find it very interesting and informative. Thanks for your time and ideas.<br>
<br>
Jill Lyon<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Auctions</a>.</blockquote></blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Bid and sell for free at <a href="http://auctions.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Auctions</a>.</blockquote><br>
</html>