LL-L "Gender" 2003.05.14 (04) [E/LS]

Wed May 14 16:56:56 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.MAY.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: globalmoose at t-online.de (Global Moose Translations)
Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2003.05.13 (14) [E/LS]

Fiete wrote:

> Kannst tau jeeideen Keirl "Du" seggen (bii Frouwensl d 'n ltt beeten
> verscheeden), kannst "Schiet" or "Swineegel" seggen, oohn datt eein
> Minschen
> sick beleidicht f l 'n deiht.

> One is able to offer the (UG) "DU" to everyman (a little bit different
> to
> women), You may use words like "sh..." and "swine-hedgehod" for
> characterizing anyone without injuring him.

Fiete, what century are you living in, for (insert your favourite Higher
Being here)'s sake? Why would that be different for women?

One of the things I like about the Lowlands board is that absolutely no
difference is being made here between male and female posters, as it
should
be.

I brought you here, so don't YOU be the swineegel who starts it! :-)

I have always wondered why EVERY language seems to have different
pronouns
etc. for "he" an "she", and in many or most cases other gender
differences,
too (articles, adjectives etc.). Also, many nouns will mercilessly
reflect
your gender - as if that mattered at all for anything besides
procreation.
English seems to be the most "progressive" here, since it only
distinguishes
between "he/she" and "his/her", while everything else is gender neutral.

Soooo... question to our experts: is there any language in the world
that
sees people as people and nothing more - in other words, doesn't
distinguish
between "he" and "she" unless the gender is actually important in
context?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Gender

Gabriele (above):

> Soooo... question to our experts: is there any language in the world that
> sees people as people and nothing more - in other words, doesn't distinguish
> between "he" and "she" unless the gender is actually important in context?

The brief answer is "Yes, lots."

Interestingly, this includes languages in whose culture now males and
females are not treated equally.  My theory is that the languages
reflect earlier sociocultural conditions.  Of course, all languages
*can* distinguish between gender if necessary, either by choosing
appropriate nouns or by adding certain morphemes.  What we are talking
about here -- and I believe this is what you mean, Gabriele -- is if
gender *must* be distinguished by default.

Most Malayo-Polynesian languages make no default morphological
difference between genders.  Thus, you have _ia_ for both 'he', 'she'
and 'it' in Polynesian languages such as Hawaiian, Tahitian and Maori (_
îa_ in Rapa-Nui, Easter Island), _ia_ also in Malay languages such as
Malay-Indonesian, _siya_ in the Philippine's languages, such as Cebuano,
Bisaya, Hiligaynon, Tagalog, _ya_ in Kapampangan.

Default gender distinction is rare and not inherent in the Altaic
language family (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, with Korean and Japanese as
pre-Altaic relatives).  In Turkic, you get the general pronoun _ol_
(Kazakh, Turkmen, etc.), _ul_ (Bashkir, Tatar, etc.), _o(l)_ (Azeri,
Turkish, etc.), _u(l)_ (Uyghur, Uzbek, etc.).  In Mongolic you get
various derivations of _tere kün_ ("this/that person").  In Japanese,
pronouns are used rarely and then mostly for clarification, and you have
the option of choosing gender-neutral (probably default) ones, such as
_ano hito_ ("that person"), _ano kata_ "that 'gentle-person'"), but you
can also be specific (_kare_ 'he', _kanojo_ 'she'), and in Korean you
have neutral _ku_.

The Uralic language family, too, shows signs of at least inherent gender
neutrality, such as 3rd-person pronoun neutrality in Estonian _tema_ or
_ta_, Finnish _hän_, and Hungarian _o"_.

In the Sino-Tibetan languages (including the Chinese one), too, there is
inherent gender neutrality.  In Mandarin, for example, the neutral
3rd-person pronoun is _ta1_.  However, in recent decades a female- and
neuter-specific character each was introduced (apparently as a part of a
flurry of indiscriminate "Westernization" efforts), *with the same
pronunciation*, thus artificial gender distinction in writing only!

It is also interesting to note that in some Turkic languages (such as
Uyghur, spoken primarily in Chinese-administered areas of Central Asia),
attempts to introduce foreign gender distinction have failed.  For
example, the Arabic word _mu`allim_ 'teacher' has been borrowed (via
Iranic) as _muälim_.  For a time, people tried to introduce (_mu`allima_
>) _muälimä_ for 'female teacher', but it simply did not catch on, and _muälim_ continues to be used for both genders, just like "teacher" is in English.  Original Turkic culture seems to have been very egalitarian with regard to gender.  This can still be observed clearly in more traditional nomadic societies (e.g., Kazakh, Kyrghyz and Yakut ones) in which everyone has to do the best they can for the survival of the group, where personal ability is more important than gender roles.  I have seen nomadic Kazakh girls and women perform jobs that elsewhere would be considered "men's work," and they tend to be as skilled at horseback riding as males are.  It is also interesting that in Kazakh (and Kyrghyz?) folktales there are both male and female heroes, where the ones in distress saved by them are not only "damsels" but also whatever it is you would call the male counterpart.

I have not even mentioned American, African and Australian languages.
Suffice it to say that among them gender neutrality is quite widespread.

In Indo-European, I believe it is the two (Lowlands) German languages
English and Scots that have the least amount of mandatory gender
distinction.  Yes, there are still pronominal distinctions, but nominal
distinctions are few and are fading away.  Certainly in American English
it is now incorrect, at least strange, to use words like "manageress" or
"Jewess", words like "actress" and "waitress" are making way for neutral
"actor" and "waiter" (or "waitperson"), while words like "nurse",
"nanny", "doctor", "dentist", "soldier", "hairdresser", "priest",
"pastor", "rabbi" and "dressmaker" are fast losing their gender-specific
connotations, and the days of "male model" (versus "model" = female) and
"male prostitute" (versus "prostitute" = female) are probably numbered,
certainly those of "male nurse."

Neutral regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================