7.557, Disc: Grammatical gender, re: 7.522 & 7.537

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-557. Sun Apr 14 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  279
 
Subject: 7.557, Disc: Grammatical gender, re: 7.522 & 7.537
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dseely at emunix.emich.edu (T. Daniel Seely)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:51:00 EDT
From:  joel at exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject:  7.537, Disc: Grammatical gender
 
2)
Date:  Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:37:01
From:  orip at netvision.net.il (Ori Pomerantz)
Subject:  Reply to 7.522, Disc: Grammatical gender
 
3)
Date:  Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:56:45 PDT
From:  wittysan at ix.netcom.com (Sean M. Witty)
Subject:  Grammatical Gender (ref:  7.537)
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:51:00 EDT
From:  joel at exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject:  7.537, Disc: Grammatical gender
 
>>                     English     Russian
>> Animate-Male:       he          on
>> Animate-Female:     she         ona
>> Animate-Indef.:     NA          ---   <-<< !!
>> Animate-Plural:     they        oni
>> Inanimate-Masc:     it          on
>> Inanimate-Fem:      it          ona
>> Inanimate-Neut:     it          ono
>> Inanimate-Plural:   they        oni
>
>The line indicated with an arrow should be corrected to:
>
>		  English     Russian
>Animate-Neut.:     it          ?
 
I would suggest "they" for the Engligh Animate Indef, and "on" for the
Russian.    In format Engligh, "he" is used for "they."  E.g.:
"Someone left their bookbag lying around."  or "Someone called me.
When they call back I'll ...."  The use of "it" for animate subjects
such as babies and animals has to do with the reclassification of
these as non-animate, not the "default" pronoun system.
 
If the original intention was more along the lines of the French "on"
(i.e., "one" in formal English) again we use "they" in English, and in
Russian indeed the lack of a pronoun is used.  So, e.g., "oni
govoryat" = "they (specific) people say" while "govoryat" has the
additional meaning of "they (e.g., unspecified people on the radio)
say."
 
-Joel Hoffman
(joel at exc.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:37:01
From:  orip at netvision.net.il (Ori Pomerantz)
Subject:  Reply to 7.522, Disc: Grammatical gender
 
 
 
In 7.522 wittysan at ix.netcom.com (Sean M. Witty) wrote:
> As Linguists, we have two basic responsibilities:  objective
> description of language related phenomena and accuracy in reporting.
> If one of us should betray these objectives, by placing their own
> personal agendas before these responsibilities, then that individual
> serves to undermine the efforts of those who bear faith...
 
> 1.  Reference:  7.419 -- Alexis Manaster Ramer
> "The problem with trying to make a language like German more genderless
> by deciding that nouns like Ingenieur be like English engineer is that
> there is no grammatical category to which they could belong."
 
> Why would anyone want to do such a thing?  This is PREscription, not
> DEscription...
 
	At the risk of sounding like a complete neophyte (which I am), I'd
like to ask who is better qualified to judge prescriptive grammer suggestions
than linguistics researchers. Obviously, some suggestions go "against the
grain" of the language and so would be impossible to adopt whereas others
can be almost natural additions.
	Whether or not there is a point in prescriptive grammer at all is,
of course, open for debate. But the fact that there is disagreement about
the subject means it is OPEN FOR DEBATE, not a closed case.
	All languages are equal in that all languages use the same universal
grammer, but some languages are demonstratably better for some purposes
(and I dare anyone who thinks differently to discuss syntax trees in biblical
Hebrew with me) and some demonstratably encode different aspects of reality
than others (in Hebrew, for example, you could say a sentance which can be
either Present Simple or Present Progressive - in English I think you can't).
 
	- Ori Pomerantz
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Sat, 13 Apr 1996 20:56:45 PDT
From:  wittysan at ix.netcom.com (Sean M. Witty)
Subject:  Grammatical Gender (ref:  7.537)
 
1.  On an appropriate solution.
 
Again, I would dare state that, in my opinion, it is not our place to
engage in directing the course of Language Evolution.  Description
means that we are in the business of describing, therefore we can only
talk about the way things are and were.  While each of us has our own
conceptions for what language SHOULD look like, that's not our
business.  Personally, I agree with you.  In a perfect world, with
perfect usage, there is no Grammatical Gender.  Sure would make
learning languages easier :), but that's not my professional opinion.
 
2.  The nasty 3P-Animate Indefinite pronoun.
 
When I presented my chart (7.522), I made it perfectly clear that there
are representations of this pronoun, but that native speakers are not
comfortable with any particular one.  Rather than pull a Caxton, by
using my own version, I refrained from listing one.  Here's why:
 
    The child is crying.
    He is crying.           (He being indefinite of sex)
    It is crying.           (I have problems with this)
 
I know of no Animate 3P pronouns in Russian, so the question is moot.
If anyone happens to know of any, please post them!
 
3.  On the matter of Sexual dichotomy.
 
Mahdi thinks wrong :)
    I am not confusing Grammar with Logic, simply asking why she thinks
that there should be "midhusband" in languages that have "midwife".  My
point was that if "der Ingenieur" can have Masculine Gender and cover
Male/Indefinite Sex, why can't "die Hebamme" have Feminine Gender and
cover Female/Indefinite Sex?  Isn't that, after all, what these words
do?
 
NOTE:  Interesting question (Mahdi):  Why is one noun for an inanimate
denotate feminine, and another one masculine in French?  But not the
same in German?
 
ANSWER:  Because French comes from Latin, and German doesn't.  Note
these rules from Italian (barring exceptions):
 
>1.  Names of male beings are masculine by nature.
>2.  Names of female beings are feminine by nature.
>3.  Nouns ending in -o are usually masculine.
>4.  Nouns ending in -a are usually feminine.
>5.  Nouns ending in -e can be either masculine or feminine.
 
German probably has rules similar to 3-5, but does not have rules 1 &
2, except in cases where Nouns have been borrowed from other languages
or created from verbs.  Thus, "die Hebamme" takes its gender not
because it's a woman, surely there is nothing in the word to indicate a
woman, but from its Phonetics.  Hence, a married woman is not "die
Herrin" but rather "die Frau".  But, a woman who teaches is "die
Lehrerin" and a woman who is an architect is "die Architektin".
 
Generally, I would agree that it is more common to find Masculine terms
covering the Indefinite.  This is, after all, what is really at the
heart of this discussion.  Might I point out that this is not always
the case (and rules really only apply when they are ALWAYS true).
 
        I.E.  Widow/Widower & Bride/Bridegroom
 
So I contend that this phenomenon is simply a coincindence.  While this
is a hard pill to swallow, it does a better job accounting for the
above examples than anything else that I have heard.
 
4.  Secretaries.
 
I do not hold the same definitions for these terms that Mahdi does.
Sure, there is one definition that means "an administrative assistant",
and since this a borrowed word in German there are two forms.  There is
also the meaning "a high ranking politician", which should also employ
the two forms as well.  In short, there is no Occupational Distinction
that is implied when the Sex is changed.  A woman who is a high ranking
politician is still "die Sekretarin".  Whether or not there are German
women who actually hold these positions has nothing to do with the
language.
 
5.  Forcing words into people's mouths.
 
By Mahdi's account, I'm rather confused.  I assure you all that I am
not!  Semantics dictates that if something is going to be "enforced", a
direct quote, then someone must do the enforcing.  For such a
suggestion to be made is wholly inappropriate.  Words, in and of
themselves, are not offensive.  So, if I am being sued because I said
that a person who was talking about something that they don't know
anything about is "Kibbitzing", no offense has been rendered - the
usage was appropriate.  Yet, there are those who believe that this term
is offensive.  So, who is going to judge?  Should someone be held
accountable simply because someone else took offense at an innocent,
but appropriate usage?  I'm certain that the term "bitch", which most
of us agree is offensive, at one time wasn't.  The world is screwed up
enough without the Language Police monitoring everything we say, OR a
group of people running around sueing everyone else because they have a
problem with the words others use.
    I didn't attribute anything to Mahdi that she herself did not say.
She talked about enforcing PC, not me.  When one talks about keeping
words out of people's mouths, this is simply another way of saying that
one wishes to control what others say.  Thus, KEEPING words out of the
mouths of others, equates to PUTTING words into the mouths of others.
I have been hit in the nose, and I've had people say bad things about
me. They are not the same thing.  And, as for the Father and his
daughter, he is not encroaching on her freedom, and is only wrong if
his daughter isn't a whore.  Frankly, I miss the connection the between
a father calling his daughter a whore and the encroachment on her
freedom.  Sure, she might not like being called a whore, and takes
offense.  So what?
 
Sticks and Stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me...
 
6.  Maria does not demonstrate what Mahdi says it does.
 
Is there any reason to preclude a name from having Gender?  Is Maria
not the feminine form of Mario (actually the other way around)?  If a
noun is simply nothing more that a name, and carries gender, names
should likewise do the same thing.  Thus, there are names with Feminine
Gender, Masculine Gender, and Neuter Gender (usuable by both sexes).
 
This brings me to another point.  For me, Alexis carries Feminine
Gender, thus AMR was referred to as 'she'.  I am fully aware of his
being a Male from previous discussions on the list.  I was simply
matching for gender and not making a sexist generalisation (actually
trying to prove a point).
 
7.  Ingenieur/Ingenieurin.
 
Actually, I did find the feminine form in an old textbook.  The bad
news is that I have been informed by a German, German Professor, that
the feminine form is NOT listed in the most recent edition of the
Duden.  So, as we can see, there is a large degree of confusion in this
area, and I was not wrong to raise an eyebrow.  Further, "Ingenieur",
among other words, is a word that I don't believe to be native to
German (see #3 above).
 
8.  Alexis Manaster Ramer.
 
No, my name is not a misnomer.
  I don't see the need for taking pock-shots at my
name.  To respond to his paultry claims...
 
A).  I mentioned "das Ingenieur" as an alternative to degenderizing the
language, and also to demonstrate the futility of doing so.  The fact
is that there are Animate Objects in German that carry Neuter Gender
(Madchen, Kind, Junge [not boy], etc...).  These are NOT exceptions as
he calls them, but the data with which one must work.  I merely
suggested that the Indefinite Forms of dichotomic nouns use Neuter
Gender (but I wasn't being prescriptive in doing so).  An engineer who
is known to be female is NEVER addressed in the German masculine.
 
B).  As for his claims regarding the German Neuter Gender, I seriously
hope that "the Neuter Gender being basically restricted to reference to
nonhumans..." is his own idea.  If not, I'd love to hear his sources
because that is so wrong...
 
C).  Finally, he mentions "...no other way to proceed..."  Where are we
going?
 
Sean M. Witty
Philadelphia, PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-557.