Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

Ask-A-Linguist Message Details

Subject: Possible Gendering of Nouns in Old English
Question: Hi! I'm a junior-high student and have been wondering about this question for a while, asking many of my teachers and never receiving a satisfactory answer. I thought a linguist may have the answer to this question, so here goes: As many know, some languages have nouns that must be said in certain ways based on their ''gender''. For example, in French, the words ''la'' (feminine) and ''le'' (masculine), both mean the same thing, or the article ''the'' in English--yet they are used in different circumstances based on the noun they are introducing. In French, for example, the word ''robe'', meaning dress (as a noun), is always introduced with a feminine article such as ''la'', because the word ''robe'' is inherently feminine. For the word ''chapeau'', meaning hat, the word is always masculine and so must be preceded by a masculine article, such as ''le''. In English this is not really the case. Nouns do not have a gender, unless they are gender specific (such as ''she'' rather than ''he''); and even then, the gender of the noun does not change the way we introduce it. However, I have noticed that in some English words and phrases, nouns do seem to be more gender specific than others. Many of the following examples were used in earlier times and are not as commonly used today: ''There she blows'', an expression used to refer to a whale blowing water, refers to the whale as female, even though in today's world we mostly refer to whales as ''it'' (gender neutral). Occasionally we also hear ships being referred to as ''her''- a captain might say about his ship, ''I call her the Santa Maria''. Other examples are some nouns in English having endings on them when they signify different genders, even though they essentially mean the same thing. ''Waiter'' and ''waitress'' is one example, so is ''host'' and ''hostess''. Although I realize the gendering of words in these English examples is not exactly the same as how it is done in French, my questions remain: First of all, what is the term for languages that have nouns with specific genders, such as in French? There must be an easier way to say it than my clumsy description above. Secondly, was English previously a language that had those gender-specific nouns, or are those example phrases above just some of the many idiosyncrasies of this complex language? I thank you in advance for any insight you have on these questions.
Reply: Hi, Lorae, As Dr. Fischer said, English used to have gender, and because of the (among other things, linguistic) turmoil caused by the Norman (French) conquest of England in 1066, later lost those distinctions. In fact, a very long time ago, some 5 or 6 thousand years, the predecessor of almost all the languages now spoken in Europe (except Finnish and Hungarian {related to each other} and Basque {unknown to be provably related to *any* other language}) apparently had a two-way gender system for nouns: animate (which has developed into what in many descendant languages is referred to as 'masculine') and inanimate (which developed later into two other genders: the original one was and is called in Latin and some other languages 'neuter'; the 'subject' plural of the neuter ended in -a; so, for example, 'temple' was, in the singular as a subject, 'templum' in Latin, and in the plural it would be 'templa'. I've never quite understood how it happened, but the experts on Indo-European (as the predecessor language is called) are agreed that this original 'neuter plural subjective' ending somehow began to be used as the 'feminine singular subjective' ending on some nouns [this must have occurred quite early on in the development of this family of languages, as in (written) historical times and earlier, a huge portion of the languages in this family had or have a feminine gender in -a, which apparently did not exist a few thousand years ago. BTW, your given name ends just like the Latin feminine plural. After some time, these new feminine nouns developed their own set of case endings [different cases are used in some languages--Latin, German and Greek, for example, but not Modern French or English to indicate different syntactic uses--for example, subject, possessive, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition, etc.]. English, Spanish and French still have vestiges of the objective case (him and whom in English, lo in Spanish and some vestiges, I believe, also in French); German has a full-blown 4-case system; Latin had 6 cases, etc. Now, cases are a morphological (suffixal in the languages we are discussing) reflex of syntactic categories. Genders, however, as you can tell by their names, are often assigned semantic content (meaning): in French, for example, they are 'masculine' and 'feminine'. But as you can see from my thumbnail sketch of the history of the 'feminine' gender, there is often no real correlation between, say, feminine gender and the feminine sex, since the assignment appears after some centuries often to be random or arbitrary, and as I said, why some inanimate plurals turned into feminine nouns has always been beyond my understanding, true as it apparently is. When we look at some other language families in the world, we find many ways of dividing up nouns. The distinction between 'animate' and 'inanimate' is a very common division (Algonquian languages from Canada & the US have that division; in all those languages, *some* (a few) nouns which for us are inanimate nevertheless are of the animate gender--some trees, some apparently ritual or 'respected' objects, such as a boat pole (but not a flagpole, which is the same base word, but of inanimate gender); curiously (to us), *no* noun in Mi'kmaq--an Algonquian language--is semantically animate but grammatically inanimate). Other languages use a somewhat different system, often called 'classifiers'. This is akin to the English use of words like 'piece' in 'a piece of paper', except that is is in some languages much more widespread: every noun must have a classifier, although some nouns may use more than one classifier in different contexts. So, if a system has classifiers for 'long cylindrical object' and another for 'wooden object', a pole could use either, depending on the context. In the Bantu languages of Africa, for example, Swahili, such classifiers occur as prefixes on nouns--one for the singular and a (possibly) different one for the plural. Nouns can normally not occur without one of these prefixes. There are also many different kinds of case systems. Thus, each noun in Finnish can have as many as 16 different suffixes ('cases'), depending on its specific syntactic use. These perhaps developed from a preposition-like system (in Finnish they would have been, then, post-positions), and this may be something like what happened in Indo-European, but the process has gotten way too opaque by this time in the I-E languages to have much hope of ever proving that. However, if you count how many 'prepositions' there are in English or French, you could see why such an idea might occur to a historical linguist about the Finnish system. (Disclaimer: I doubt whether many Finnish linguists would entertain such an explanation, and there are precious few very old documents in Finnish (even for, say, French there are not many over 1500 years old, unless you count the large number of documents in Latin, and even those only go back a very few hundred years before Christ).) Well, you can see that there are lots of aspects to your question, and many interesting ones. Let me reiterate Susan's suggestion of reading a good introductory textbook in linguistics, and you'll find many such interesting byways along the route. Have fun! Jim James L. Fidelholtz Graduate Program in Language Sciences Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades Benem'erita Universidad Aut'onoma de Puebla, M'EXICO
Reply From: James L Fidelholtz      click here to access email
Date: 30-Nov-2013
Other Replies:
  1. Re: Possible Gendering of Nouns in Old English    Geoffrey Richard Sampson     (01-Dec-2013)
  2. Re: Possible Gendering of Nouns in Old English    Herbert Frederic Stahlke     (30-Nov-2013)
  3. Re: Possible Gendering of Nouns in Old English    Elizabeth J Pyatt     (02-Dec-2013)
  4. Re: Possible Gendering of Nouns in Old English    Susan D Fischer     (30-Nov-2013)

Back to Most Recent Questions