<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150443"><span>Sebastian Nordhoff's comment is on the mark, in my opinion.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150443"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150443"><span>Elena Bashir</span></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150442"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150434" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150433"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150432"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150431"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150430"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150441"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff@glottotopia.de><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, March 21, 2017 2:39 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150435"><br><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1490107667193_150436">Dear all,<br clear="none">as someone who has not worked extensively on either of these concepts, I<br clear="none">still have to say that the term "genifier" strikes me as odd. My first<br clear="none">thought upon seeing the subject of the mail was "OK, this will be about<br clear="none">making something a gender, or a gene, or a knee-like thing maybe, let's<br clear="none">see". I was misled by terms such as "intensifier", used to make<br clear="none">something more intense, and certainly also, albeit more on phonological<br clear="none">grounds, by "gentrification", which is a widely debated topic where I live.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The attempt to blend "GEnder" and "classiFIER" is not successful in my<br clear="none">view, as "-fier" is not really the important formative here; "class" is.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">If there is a desire for a blend, I would rather go for "Clender" or<br clear="none">"Clander", which would not lead to misparsings/misinterpretations as the<br clear="none">one I had.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">As a final note, a "classifier" does something to an X, while "gender"<br clear="none">is a property of an X.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">(1) /ladida/ is of gender X<br clear="none">(2) ?/ladida/ is of classifier X<br clear="none">(3) ?/-dada/ is a gender<br clear="none">(4) /-dada/ is a classifier<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is unclear to me whether the two concepts "gender" and "classifier"<br clear="none">do actually have a superordinate concept. Possibly, one has to use<br clear="none">"gender marker" and "classifier", or "noun class" and "gender" as<br clear="none">subordinate concepts to arrive at a good superordinate concept.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Best wishes<br clear="none">Sebastian<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">On 03/20/2017 04:05 PM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:<br clear="none">> Dear typologists,<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Cross-linguistic terminology (comparative concepts) should be both clear<br clear="none">> and conform to the tradition, in order to preserve continuity with the<br clear="none">> older literature.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> In the case of the terms "gender" and "classifier", it seems that these<br clear="none">> two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously without coining a new term<br clear="none">> ("genifier").<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> There is quite a bit of general literature on gender/classifiers (e.g.<br clear="none">> Dixon 1986; Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2000; Seifart 2010; Corbett &<br clear="none">> Fedden 2016), but none of these works provide clear definitions of these<br clear="none">> terms, and the more recent literature (e.g. Corbett & Fedden, and also<br clear="none">> Seifart & Payne 2007) actually emphasizes that there is no reason to say<br clear="none">> that gender markers and classifiers are distinct phenomena in the<br clear="none">> world's languages.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Thus, it seems to me that we need the new term "genifier", perhaps<br clear="none">> defined as follows:<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> A *genifier system* is a system of grammatical markers which occur on<br clear="none">> nominal modifiers, predicates or anaphoric pronouns, and each of which<br clear="none">> expresses (i.e. normally reflects, but sometimes contributes) a broad<br clear="none">> property other than person and number of the controlling noun (i.e. for<br clear="none">> nominal modifiers: the modificatum, for predicates: an argument, for<br clear="none">> anaphoric pronouns: the antecedent).<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> The alternative to coining a new term, it seems to me, would be to<br clear="none">> extend the meaning of the term "gender" or of the term "classifier" in<br clear="none">> such a way that there would be no more continuity with the earlier<br clear="none">> literature.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Given the above definition of genifier, we can perhaps define "gender"<br clear="none">> and "numeral classifier" as follows (as arbitrary subcategories of<br clear="none">> genifiers, defined just to preserve continuity with the older literature):<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> A *gender system* (= a system of gender markers) is a system of<br clear="none">> genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not<br clear="none">> restricted to numeral modifiers.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> A *numeral classifier system* is a system of genifiers which is<br clear="none">> restricted to numeral (plus optionally other adnominal) modifiers.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> I wonder if the above definitions have any obvious defects, i.e. any<br clear="none">> cases that everyone would call gender or numeral classifier and that<br clear="none">> wouldn't fall under the definitions, or cases that fall under them and<br clear="none">> that nobody would call gender or numeral classifier.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Note that the new term "genifier" also has the advantage that the whole<br clear="none">> domain can be called *genification* (rather than the cumbersome "noun<br clear="none">> classification/nominal classification", which is also vague because<br clear="none">> there are all kinds of "classes" or "classifications" of nouns which<br clear="none">> have nothing to do with genifiers).<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Any comments?<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Thanks,<br clear="none">> Martin<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> *************************<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> References<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. /Classifiers: A typology of noun<br clear="none">> categorization devices/. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br clear="none">> Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender.<br clear="none">> /Journal of Linguistics/ 52(3). 495--531.<br clear="none">> Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification in<br clear="none">> typological perspective. In Colette Grinevald Craig (ed.), /Noun classes<br clear="none">> and categorization/, 105--112. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br clear="none">> Grinevald, Colette G. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers.<br clear="none">> In Gunter Senft (ed.), /Systems of nominal classification/, 50--92.<br clear="none">> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br clear="none">> Seifart, Frank. 2010. Nominal classification. /Language and Linguistics<br clear="none">> Compass/ 4(8). 719--736.<br clear="none">> Seifart, Frank & Doris L. Payne. 2007. Nominal classification in the<br clear="none">> North West Amazon: Issues in areal diffusion and typological<br clear="none">> characterization. /International Journal of American Linguistics/ 73(4).<br clear="none">> 381--387.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">> Lingtyp mailing list<br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><div class="yqt9914231687" id="yqtfd49062"><br clear="none">> <br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Lingtyp mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br clear="none"></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>