Editor for this issue: Sarah Murray <sarah
linguistlist.org>
Michael Beard wrote: >> ... an addition to this line of reasoning would be to examine other languages' terms for ''gender'' and whether or not there are any biological associations due to an unfortunate/accidental case of synonomous ambiguity. << Hebrew has so-called male & female gender that is *not* based on sex. There is a rough correspondence with convexity (male) and concavity (female) and with giving (male) and receiving (female). Therefore, the term for female breast(s), SHaD(aim) is masculine. Subject-Language: Hebrew; Code: HBRMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Quoth "Michael Beard" <mcbeardMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueearthlink.net>: > Is anyone familiar with, for example, the old Sanskrit > grammarians' term(s) for how nouns were classified? > [...] I'm sure there are plenty of examples from other > languages that show there is no association between biology > and noun classification systems. There certainly are, but Sanskrit is a poor example. Here are the terms, along with their other meanings: `gender': _liGga_ `mark, sign; symbol; male sexual organ' `masculine': _puMs_ `man, male; servant; soul'; _puM-liGga_ `feminine': _strI_ `woman'; _strI-liGga_ `female sexual organs' `neuter': _napuMsaka_ `emasculated', cf. _napuMsa_ `eunuch' > The term "gender" itself is the main problem here, > not nominal classifications in languages. I think it is the other way around: if a language has noun classes, and most words for men (and perhaps male animals) belong to one class whilst most words for women (and perhaps female animals) belong to another, then whatever word is used as a term for noun class is likely, though in no way guaranteed, to develop the meaning `sex' (as a biological distinction), and the terms of the masculine and the feminine class are likewise prone to being used for male and female sex, respectively. - Ivan A Derzhanski