• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Having some feminitives in lexicon is not the same as having grammatical gender. I mean, is having a word for werewolf the same as having a “wolf” gender?

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      “Some feminitives” is disingenuous. It’s an Indo-European language, it shares the structure of other IE languages, in some cases pared down and/or in disuse, but they’re still there, same as vestigial base-12 counting.

      I don’t get why people are so upset about the concept of grammatical gender, though. It’s gramatical, it’s not actual gender - original division in PIE was “animate” and “inanimate”. Hell, I vaguely remember a conlang that had separate genders for terrestrial and aquatic animals, so you could absolutely make one that has a gender for “wolf”.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not talking about that, frankly. Just that grammatical gender means usually its own inflections for cases, for adjectives, for verbs. At least some of those.

        • Aqarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Fair point. My point would be that English doesn’t really inflect words at all, but when it does, namely pronouns, it has both cases and genders.

          For comparison, in German, cases don’t change nouns either (except some genitives - kinda like English, now that i think about it), they instead affect articles, and even then the nominative and accusative case are identical, except for masculine singular nouns, and first and second person pronouns. So, if n. and f. nouns dominate, you could make the case that German doesn’t have an acc. case, and then make a carveout for m. noun “outliers”. Except step into first and second person, and acc. pops back out, meaning it was always there, even for f. and n.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            OK, I agree with the argument, but one can call that a rudiment - same as for Russian some people say it has not 6, but 7 cases. That is, a vocative case (which archaic Russian speech would have, Belorussian and Ukrainian have without doubt, but standard Russian does not formally). It’s used when calling someone by name, like “Вась, Петь, Миш, Маш”.

            Well, it’s never clear cut with languages