why baby is it and dogs he or she?
why not other way around?
why not other way around?
why is baby it and dogs he or she
A sheep is it, but a ship is she.
LOL
I guess sheep is considered common meat, while ships are beautiful to admire and look at: I love her, standing in the Long Beach harbor: Our lovely Queen Mary.
LOL
I guess sheep is considered common meat, while ships are beautiful to admire and look at: I love her, standing in the Long Beach harbor: Our lovely Queen Mary.
Both babies and dogs can be referred to as it when talking about them in general terms or a baby or dog you don't know. But you would be unlikely to refer to the baby of some one you know as 'it', likewise your own or a friend's dog.
They're both referred to as "it" if you don't know the gender; otherwise you would use "he" or "she."
Referring to a baby or a child as "it" is a hangover from earlier times in English language, where the word "child" was neuter in gender (cf. German 'das Kind' ["the child"] = 'es' ["it"].
"Baby" took on this pronoun association from "child" through analogy.
Even though English no longer has grammatical gender, the use of "it" remains in full force aided by what Skippy has alluded to above: when one does not know or specify specific gender.
"Baby" took on this pronoun association from "child" through analogy.
Even though English no longer has grammatical gender, the use of "it" remains in full force aided by what Skippy has alluded to above: when one does not know or specify specific gender.
I call babies 'it' because they have undeveloped brains and cannot yet be considered fully sentient beings.
"Even though English no longer has grammatical gender, the use of "it" remains in full force aided by what Skippy has alluded to above: when one does not know or specify specific gender."
Sorry, wrong.
English certainly does retain "grammatical gender" as you call it.* Otherwise, why would a baby, a tree, a book, an ant and a rock share the same gender?
And I note folks are falling into the trap of conflating the grammatical concept of gender with sex.
What is interesting is that English seems to have a sort of "gender threshhold" that won't allow humans above a certain age group to be identified as neuter. A child of indeterminate sex, like a mouse, can be an "it." But a doctor can never be an "it" and must be either a "he" or a "she."
Sorry, wrong.
English certainly does retain "grammatical gender" as you call it.* Otherwise, why would a baby, a tree, a book, an ant and a rock share the same gender?
And I note folks are falling into the trap of conflating the grammatical concept of gender with sex.
What is interesting is that English seems to have a sort of "gender threshhold" that won't allow humans above a certain age group to be identified as neuter. A child of indeterminate sex, like a mouse, can be an "it." But a doctor can never be an "it" and must be either a "he" or a "she."
<<Sorry, wrong.
English certainly does retain "grammatical gender" as you call it.* Otherwise, why would a baby, a tree, a book, an ant and a rock share the same gender?
>>
I'm talking about the old English way of assigning gender (Masc, Fem, Neut) to nouns Dufus
we don't say: the man; tha lady; and that child (i.e. "the child" neut)
You knew exactly what I meant @sshole
English certainly does retain "grammatical gender" as you call it.* Otherwise, why would a baby, a tree, a book, an ant and a rock share the same gender?
>>
I'm talking about the old English way of assigning gender (Masc, Fem, Neut) to nouns Dufus
we don't say: the man; tha lady; and that child (i.e. "the child" neut)
You knew exactly what I meant @sshole