Why do some languages use gendered nouns? It seems to just add more complexity for no benefit.
Because languages aren’t constructed, they ‘evolved’ naturally from humans communicating with one another for many generations. As such, they aren’t intended to be as simple as possible. They aren’t intended in the first place. They’ve grown over time with no regard for whether the rules makes sense because nobody designed those rules, they just happened.
Okay, thank you. Anyway: is here somebody who actually knows WHY this happened? What was the underlying cause for our ansestors to start using it? What were they trying to achieve or solve? (UNINTENTIONALLY, okay, we got it.)
I’m just speculating, but I could imagine they personfied objects and maybe transfered gender to objects that way?
Being able to communicate complex concepts made it easier for them to work together. Once the hominids became apex predators, their main adversaries were other hominids. Again, in that case, the better you can communicate, the better your chances for survival are.
These bits of grammar don’t always actually communicate any extra information about anything other than the grammar of the language you’re speaking, though. The “gender” of the thing in question can’t reliably be distinguished from grammar since even in the Indo-European languages where the noun classes are typically thought of as masculine or feminine, the word’s grammatical gender can contradict its actual gender. The Old English word for “woman”, back when English had grammatical gender, was masculine.
Esperanto is designed, and so is C++.
I thought this was a discussion about languages people speak.
Esperanto is an interesting case though but it wasn’t designed to be as simple as a language can be (since that is highly subjective). It was designed to have as many similarities as possible to major European language in order to make it easier for speakers of those European languages to learn.
How do you say “I’m very lonely” in C++?
throw NullPointerException;
C++ is perhaps a great example of a language that has evolved over time without people putting a lot thought in it.
It probably seems extra complexity for you, if your language does not use it. For native speakers it is just natural and not using it would be at least weird.
We could ask the same question about articles . Those ‘the’ and ‘a’, why use them? It only makes English language harder to use! ‘Apple is apple’ why add another meaningless word?
Of course after learning and using English for years I see the meaning of ‘a’ and ‘the’ and thy feel quite natural for me to (though sometimes they still make little sense to me – all the fights whether ‘The’ can be used with some proper name or not). The point is: a lot of features of a foreign language will fill alien and unnecessary.
Maybe more on topic, that is how/why gendered words work in Polish: noun gender is usually linked to how it ends (but do not confuse that with suffixes of grammatical cases). Virtually all Polish women names end with ‘a’, so any other noun ending in ‘a’ sounds feminine and would be used in similar way. And sometimes it just ‘rhymes’ – like in ‘to jabkło’ (‘this apple’ – neuter), ‘ta gruszka’ (‘this pear’ – feminine), ‘ten banan’ (‘this banana’ – masculine). Of course thing get much more complicated than that (like in every language, just in different parts of the language).
People were just talking in the way that it was convenient for them. And thousands years later scholars called this feature of particular set of languages ‘gender’ because words used seem to be related to genders.
Side note. The evolves out of this and that. Over time the romance languages just cut the old Latin words up. Most of the time you can sub this or that for the. The other times we use is kund of as a topic marker.
It’s a thing that can happen as more complex case ending systems like Latin lose audible distinctions over time.
You might think that’d just result in linguistic gender being skipped in favor of no case endings altogether like English, but that’s not why English is theorized to have nixed gender.
Linguists have started to theorize that the Danelaw is what killed english grammatical gender, as old English and Old Norse were similar-ish languages at the time with a decent level of mutual intelligibility, but the big sticking point would have been disagreements on grammatical gender between the two languages. So the theory goes that inhabitants of the Danelaw just kinda stopped using it to facilitate less confusing mutual conversation when interacting with a speaker of the other language, and eventually that innovation spread south with the unification of the seven kingdoms into England.
What this tells us is that given a language with grammatical gender, it takes a very narrow set of circumstances to facilitate the conditions where a group might naturally innovate genderless communication.
What’s actually kinda interesting is that Esperanto is having a moment like this, while technically you are to use the pronouns Li and Sxi, for he and her, Duolingo has a lot of the use of Si, which is a singular they, and since a lot of esperanto’s modern speakers are duolingo users, a lot of folks are just using si.
What’s actually kinda interesting is that Esperanto is having a moment like this, while technically you are to use the pronouns Li and Sxi, for he and her, Duolingo has a lot of the use of Si, which is a singular they, and since a lot of esperanto’s modern speakers are duolingo users, a lot of folks are just using si.
I speak Esperanto for 14 years now. And no, “si” is not a singular “they”. That’s a self-referencing pronoun. And if that usage is used for genderless addressing a person then this is simply incorrect usage, because people don’t know how actually the language works. It’s used in sentences like “li lavis sin” vs. “Li lavis lin”. The first one says “he washes himself” and the second says “he washes him”, the first references the person who executes the action to reference and the second says that the action is done on a different person.
If it comes to Esperanto and genderless usage then there ĝi (it) or ri (they). The first one would be more in accordance with the fundament of the language and the second is a new pronoun which is around since at least the 70s.
No need to misuse si.
it takes a very narrow set of circumstances to facilitate the conditions where a group might naturally innovate genderless communication.
Do you know more about how does that work with languages that have had no gender to begin with? Hungarian for example has had no gendered nouns or pronouns for the past millennia.
If other Uralic languages are genderless I’d imagine it’s just always been that way as far as can be reconstructed, otherwise I’d need to know more about the development of the Hungarian language from before the conquest of the Pannonian basin, because I’d imagine that you’d find the answers there if at all.
I also don’t presume that genderless language has to evolve from gendered language, I was just pointing out that that’s how it happened with English, a lot of east asian languages don’t have grammatical gender for example and I’m like 99% sure that happened without a Danelaw scenario necessitating it to avoid fights breaking out over misgendering the nice silk everyone was admiring.
Quick Question (to OP and beyond) - the English language has wording for the gender of a person who acts - actor/actress.
Yet, these days, most people in the movie or theatre industry call themselves “actors”. They’ve dropped the word “actress”.
Do we know why?
-
part of a wider trend eg “waitstaff” or “server” instead of “waiter”/“waitress”
-
due to traditional heirarchies, most job descriptions ending in -ess (or worse, starlet instead of star) are a devalued or less respected title
-
easier to just have one plural
-
