"There are no masculine, feminine or neutral words like most other languages."
If that is so, then what gender are the following words: boy, girl, computer?
If that is so, then what gender are the following words: boy, girl, computer?
English is the hardest language to learn
I hope you are not trying to say that the *word* boy is of masculine gender and the word girl of feminine gender up there.
>>If that is so, then what gender are the following words: boy, girl, computer?<<
Are you suggesting that English has grammatical gender? And if you are, on what grounds?
Are you suggesting that English has grammatical gender? And if you are, on what grounds?
"Are you suggesting that English has grammatical gender? And if you are, on what grounds?"
Yes, a relatively diminished "grammatical gender" but, in my opinion, it's certainly still extant nonetheless.
How else to explain the use of "it" for an animal (or, for that matter, a child or baby) as well as for a chair or a rock?
Yes, a relatively diminished "grammatical gender" but, in my opinion, it's certainly still extant nonetheless.
How else to explain the use of "it" for an animal (or, for that matter, a child or baby) as well as for a chair or a rock?
>>How else to explain the use of "it" for an animal (or, for that matter, a child or baby) as well as for a chair or a rock?<<
Mind you that it is quite usual for languages to have pronoun systems which express distinctions that are otherwise absent from said languages' grammars. Just because English has "he", "she", and "it" does not mean it has grammatical gender as a language.
Mind you that it is quite usual for languages to have pronoun systems which express distinctions that are otherwise absent from said languages' grammars. Just because English has "he", "she", and "it" does not mean it has grammatical gender as a language.
"Just because English has 'he', 'she', and 'it' does not mean it has grammatical gender as a language."
It's that "it" pronoun that convinces me "grammatical gender" is still hanging in there by a thread.
Both "he" and "she" have increasingly been relegated to the role of "sex" pronouns. But "it" still represents "gender."
It's that "it" pronoun that convinces me "grammatical gender" is still hanging in there by a thread.
Both "he" and "she" have increasingly been relegated to the role of "sex" pronouns. But "it" still represents "gender."
>>Most Americans don't use correct grammar.<<
Obviously you don't understand that the spoken language need not have the same grammar as the formal literary language..
Obviously you don't understand that the spoken language need not have the same grammar as the formal literary language..
"Most Americans don't use correct grammar."
A statement like this has no objective credibility or foundation.
A statement like this has no objective credibility or foundation.
Travis : « Just because English has 'he', 'she', and 'it' does not mean it has grammatical gender as a language. »
05HE : « It's that "it" pronoun that convinces me "grammatical gender" is still hanging in there by a thread. Both "he" and "she" have increasingly been relegated to the role of "sex" pronouns. But "it" still represents "gender." »
Ich bin mit 05HE einvesrtanden.
Les substantifs qui peuvent être repris par An <he> & <she> sont respectivement des masculins sémantiques et des féminins sémantiques. Le système de marquage morphologique (direct ou indirect) est pratiquement inexistant en anglais (à part des mots tels que An <empress> <huntress> <chairwoman> <saleswoman> etc). Mais ça ne veut pas dire que le genre grammatical n'existe pas. Car si tel était le cas, on utiliserait An <it> (ou autre chose) pour An <boy>, <girl>, <chairperson>, <salesperson> etc. Ça signifie simplement que le genre grammatical est en général morphologiquement non-marqué (directement ou indirectement).
À partir du moment où il existe un système de relation entre tous les substantifs anglais et l'ensemble {he, she, he or she, it, they}, on peut penser que tous les substantifs anglais ont un genre grammatical — en général non-marqué.
A — The little girl. She is crying.
B — La fillette. Elle pleure.
B — En français <la> est grammaticalement marqué : féminin grammatical. Pareil pour <fillette> à cause du suffixe <-ette> (diminutif {little} + sexe féminin {girl}). Reprise par un pronom grammaticalement féminin : <elle>.
A — En anglais <the> est grammaticalement non-marqué : neutre faible sémantique (grammaticalement : masculin, féminin, neutre fort ou neutre faible). Pareil pour l'adjectif <little> : neutre faible sémantique (grammaticalement : masculin, féminin, neutre fort ou neutre faible). De la même manière <girl> est grammaticalement non-marqué (à la différence de <empress> ou <chairwoman>), mais il s'agit d'un féminin sémantique (animé humain de sexe féminin). De plus, ce féminin sémantique est obligatoirement repris par <she>, qui est un pronom grammaticalement féminin.
05HE : « It's that "it" pronoun that convinces me "grammatical gender" is still hanging in there by a thread. Both "he" and "she" have increasingly been relegated to the role of "sex" pronouns. But "it" still represents "gender." »
Ich bin mit 05HE einvesrtanden.
Les substantifs qui peuvent être repris par An <he> & <she> sont respectivement des masculins sémantiques et des féminins sémantiques. Le système de marquage morphologique (direct ou indirect) est pratiquement inexistant en anglais (à part des mots tels que An <empress> <huntress> <chairwoman> <saleswoman> etc). Mais ça ne veut pas dire que le genre grammatical n'existe pas. Car si tel était le cas, on utiliserait An <it> (ou autre chose) pour An <boy>, <girl>, <chairperson>, <salesperson> etc. Ça signifie simplement que le genre grammatical est en général morphologiquement non-marqué (directement ou indirectement).
À partir du moment où il existe un système de relation entre tous les substantifs anglais et l'ensemble {he, she, he or she, it, they}, on peut penser que tous les substantifs anglais ont un genre grammatical — en général non-marqué.
A — The little girl. She is crying.
B — La fillette. Elle pleure.
B — En français <la> est grammaticalement marqué : féminin grammatical. Pareil pour <fillette> à cause du suffixe <-ette> (diminutif {little} + sexe féminin {girl}). Reprise par un pronom grammaticalement féminin : <elle>.
A — En anglais <the> est grammaticalement non-marqué : neutre faible sémantique (grammaticalement : masculin, féminin, neutre fort ou neutre faible). Pareil pour l'adjectif <little> : neutre faible sémantique (grammaticalement : masculin, féminin, neutre fort ou neutre faible). De la même manière <girl> est grammaticalement non-marqué (à la différence de <empress> ou <chairwoman>), mais il s'agit d'un féminin sémantique (animé humain de sexe féminin). De plus, ce féminin sémantique est obligatoirement repris par <she>, qui est un pronom grammaticalement féminin.
"greg":
Merci pour vos commentaires. Si ça ne vous dérange pas, et afin de rendre ce discours plus compréhensible pour nos chers collègues anglophones, je continuerai en anglais.
Compounding the problem with our approach to "grammatical gender" in English is confusion between the term "gender" and "sex." Because in general use, "gender" has become synonymous with "sex," there's often a tendency to conflate the two in language studies. But an immediate and obvious difference is that while there are only two sexes (male and female), there can be more than two genders in a language (or, conversely, no genders at all).
The only way a language could be truly "gender-free" is by having no grammatical mechanism to acknowledge gender. Effectively (as you point out), any language in which, for example, a "female" noun must be replaced by a "female" pronoun still has a gender system, albeit minimal. And just because a gender system aligns itself closely with the "natural sex order" does not mean it is not grammatical.
English is closer to reflecting "natural sex" in its gender system, but not all the way there. People tend to focus on the obvious: that "woman" is "female" in English and "table" is an "it" ("unlike those other silly languages with their complicated genders, etc. etc."). But it is the English neuter that provides the best evidence for the continued presence of "grammatical gender" in the language.
Notice that while all inanimate objects are neuter in English (for practical purposes, we can dispense here with "familiarisms" such as "ship/she"),* so are most living things too - including higher order animals who quite clearly have a sex (dog, cat, rat, mouse, fish). The English neuter gender is used to cover not only "things" but also "living things" of indeterminate sex. If a baby and a train station can both be described as "it," that's hardly "natural sex order."
Interestingly, English appears to maintain a strict threshold on what living things can or cannot be neuter. A word such as "baby" or "child" or "cat" where the sex is not specified can be an "it" but a word like "doctor" or "teenager" - even where the sex is not stated - can never be an "it." Such epicene words cause endless grief in English; at one time, the gender system merely used a masculine default setting - now that's no longer politically correct.
To sum up, I disagree that English has no "grammatical gender" system. I believe that most native English speakers who claim this do so more or less because, unlike say, French, "table" in English is an "it" and not a "she."
And that "makes more sense" to them.
* Though our ability to make inanimate objects "female" in English, is further evidence of a "grammatical gender" mechanism in the language.
Merci pour vos commentaires. Si ça ne vous dérange pas, et afin de rendre ce discours plus compréhensible pour nos chers collègues anglophones, je continuerai en anglais.
Compounding the problem with our approach to "grammatical gender" in English is confusion between the term "gender" and "sex." Because in general use, "gender" has become synonymous with "sex," there's often a tendency to conflate the two in language studies. But an immediate and obvious difference is that while there are only two sexes (male and female), there can be more than two genders in a language (or, conversely, no genders at all).
The only way a language could be truly "gender-free" is by having no grammatical mechanism to acknowledge gender. Effectively (as you point out), any language in which, for example, a "female" noun must be replaced by a "female" pronoun still has a gender system, albeit minimal. And just because a gender system aligns itself closely with the "natural sex order" does not mean it is not grammatical.
English is closer to reflecting "natural sex" in its gender system, but not all the way there. People tend to focus on the obvious: that "woman" is "female" in English and "table" is an "it" ("unlike those other silly languages with their complicated genders, etc. etc."). But it is the English neuter that provides the best evidence for the continued presence of "grammatical gender" in the language.
Notice that while all inanimate objects are neuter in English (for practical purposes, we can dispense here with "familiarisms" such as "ship/she"),* so are most living things too - including higher order animals who quite clearly have a sex (dog, cat, rat, mouse, fish). The English neuter gender is used to cover not only "things" but also "living things" of indeterminate sex. If a baby and a train station can both be described as "it," that's hardly "natural sex order."
Interestingly, English appears to maintain a strict threshold on what living things can or cannot be neuter. A word such as "baby" or "child" or "cat" where the sex is not specified can be an "it" but a word like "doctor" or "teenager" - even where the sex is not stated - can never be an "it." Such epicene words cause endless grief in English; at one time, the gender system merely used a masculine default setting - now that's no longer politically correct.
To sum up, I disagree that English has no "grammatical gender" system. I believe that most native English speakers who claim this do so more or less because, unlike say, French, "table" in English is an "it" and not a "she."
And that "makes more sense" to them.
* Though our ability to make inanimate objects "female" in English, is further evidence of a "grammatical gender" mechanism in the language.
English is not that hard to learn. I think it is even easiyer because so many people speaki it. But it also depends on your native language, althought my native language is not in the same language group as English I had apsolutely no problem learning it, and also some spanish. So i guess it depends on each individuals strenghts. Like some people are better with math some with chemistry and some with languages...that is what i think...so you cant really say or decide which language is harder.and i also think it depends on your teacher or where ever you try to learn a certain thing from.
I actually think English is the hardest language to learn. I will explain my reasoning:
I am from American and I do speak English. However, I think English is the haredst language to learn because of all the "slang" people use today. For example, you could be from a different country and have just learned the word 'sick' for its meaning of 'Suffering from or affected with a physical illness; ailing'. Later on , you may go to a subway or even walk in the streets and here a person say 'that is a really sick car, dude'. You may easily get confused and not know what to say.
If I am wrong, explain to why I am. Thanks
~LaLa
I am from American and I do speak English. However, I think English is the haredst language to learn because of all the "slang" people use today. For example, you could be from a different country and have just learned the word 'sick' for its meaning of 'Suffering from or affected with a physical illness; ailing'. Later on , you may go to a subway or even walk in the streets and here a person say 'that is a really sick car, dude'. You may easily get confused and not know what to say.
If I am wrong, explain to why I am. Thanks
~LaLa
Also if you are thinking of learning another language and you already speak English, try learning Dutch or Frisian. THEY ARE SOOO EASY. You can learn many words by reading a paragraph in Dutch. Try it :)
~LaLa
~LaLa