[Lingtyp] genifiers (gender markers/classifiers)

[Sebastian Nordhoff]

> And the term “gen-ifier” is completely parallel to “class-ifier” – it’s
> a marker that puts a noun in a genus.

if "genifier" is used to put a noun in a *genus*, it is out as a marker
for the superordinate concept encompassing both noun class and gender.
Best
Sebastian

> 
> (Actually, since English distinguishes between “gender” and “genus”, one
> might even introduce “genus” as a new feature term, a cover term for
> gender and classifierhood. That would certainly be found more acceptable
> to neophobics than "clender".)
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 21.03.17 20:38, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> as someone who has not worked extensively on either of these concepts, I
>> still have to say that the term "genifier" strikes me as odd. My first
>> thought upon seeing the subject of the mail was "OK, this will be about
>> making something a gender, or a gene, or a knee-like thing maybe, let's
>> see". I was misled by terms such as "intensifier", used to make
>> something more intense, and certainly also, albeit more on phonological
>> grounds, by "gentrification", which is a widely debated topic where I
>> live.
>>
>> The attempt to blend "GEnder" and "classiFIER" is not successful in my
>> view, as "-fier" is not really the important formative here; "class" is.
>>
>> If there is a desire for a blend, I would rather go for "Clender" or
>> "Clander", which would not lead to misparsings/misinterpretations as the
>> one I had.
>>
>> As a final note, a "classifier" does something to an X, while "gender"
>> is a property of an X.
>>
>> (1)  /ladida/ is of gender X
>> (2) ?/ladida/ is of classifier X
>> (3) ?/-dada/ is a gender
>> (4)  /-dada/ is a classifier
>>
>> It is unclear to me whether the two concepts "gender" and "classifier"
>> do actually have a superordinate concept. Possibly, one has to use
>> "gender marker" and "classifier", or "noun class" and "gender" as
>> subordinate concepts to arrive at a good superordinate concept.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/20/2017 04:05 PM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
>>> Dear typologists,
>>>
>>> Cross-linguistic terminology (comparative concepts) should be both clear
>>> and conform to the tradition, in order to preserve continuity with the
>>> older literature.
>>>
>>> In the case of the terms "gender" and "classifier", it seems that these
>>> two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously without coining a new term
>>> ("genifier").
>>>
>>> There is quite a bit of general literature on gender/classifiers (e.g.
>>> Dixon 1986; Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2000; Seifart 2010; Corbett &
>>> Fedden 2016), but none of these works provide clear definitions of these
>>> terms, and the more recent literature (e.g. Corbett & Fedden, and also
>>> Seifart & Payne 2007) actually emphasizes that there is no reason to say
>>> that gender markers and classifiers are distinct phenomena in the
>>> world's languages.
>>>
>>> Thus, it seems to me that we need the new term "genifier", perhaps
>>> defined as follows:
>>>
>>> A *genifier system* is a system of grammatical markers which occur on
>>> nominal modifiers, predicates or anaphoric pronouns, and each of which
>>> expresses (i.e. normally reflects, but sometimes contributes) a broad
>>> property other than person and number of the controlling noun (i.e. for
>>> nominal modifiers: the modificatum, for predicates: an argument, for
>>> anaphoric pronouns: the antecedent).
>>>
>>> The alternative to coining a new term, it seems to me, would be to
>>> extend the meaning of the term "gender" or of the term "classifier" in
>>> such a way that there would be no more continuity with the earlier
>>> literature.
>>>
>>> Given the above definition of genifier, we can perhaps define "gender"
>>> and "numeral classifier" as follows (as arbitrary subcategories of
>>> genifiers, defined just to preserve continuity with the older
>>> literature):
>>>
>>> A *gender system* (= a system of gender markers) is a system of
>>> genifiers which includes no more than 20 genifiers and which is not
>>> restricted to numeral modifiers.
>>>
>>> A *numeral classifier system* is a system of genifiers which is
>>> restricted to numeral (plus optionally other adnominal) modifiers.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the above definitions have any obvious defects, i.e. any
>>> cases that everyone would call gender or numeral classifier and that
>>> wouldn't fall under the definitions, or cases that fall under them and
>>> that nobody would call gender or numeral classifier.
>>>
>>> Note that the new term "genifier" also has the advantage that the whole
>>> domain can be called *genification* (rather than the cumbersome "noun
>>> classification/nominal classification", which is also vague because
>>> there are all kinds of "classes" or "classifications" of nouns which
>>> have nothing to do with genifiers).
>>>
>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> *************************
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. /Classifiers: A typology of noun
>>> categorization devices/. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
>>> Corbett, Greville G. & Sebastian Fedden. 2016. Canonical gender.
>>> /Journal of Linguistics/ 52(3). 495--531.
>>> Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification in
>>> typological perspective. In Colette Grinevald Craig (ed.), /Noun classes
>>> and categorization/, 105--112. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
>>> Grinevald, Colette G. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers.
>>> In Gunter Senft (ed.), /Systems of nominal classification/, 50--92.
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>> Seifart, Frank. 2010. Nominal classification. /Language and Linguistics
>>> Compass/ 4(8). 719--736.
>>> Seifart, Frank & Doris L. Payne. 2007. Nominal classification in the
>>> North West Amazon: Issues in areal diffusion and typological
>>> characterization. /International Journal of American Linguistics/ 73(4).
>>> 381--387.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>