Editor for this issue: <>
Content-Length: 350 In some languages which are standarly described as genderless it is still the case, I am pretty sure, that people say things like 'that woman' instead of 'she' and because this looks like a purely lexical matter, the appearance of genderlessness is preserved. I wonder if this applies to the languages recently described as genderless on this list.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Content-Length: 719 You wrote: )Most of the genderless languages are SOV and their morphology is )"agglutinative", in traditional typological terms. )The realisation of gender tends to be tied closely to the realisation of )morphological case in the world's languages )e-mail: ortmannMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueling.uni-duesseldorf.de I agree that most genderless languages tend to be agglutinative, but not SOV. The Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian languages, for example, contain many examples of non-SOV languages which are also genderless. Many examples can also be found in Africa and the Native American languages, which though agglutinative are not SOV. Paul Kekai Manansala
Content-Length: 2009 Hi you gender people, It may be that I have missed something that has been going on on the list. If I understand right there has been some claim about that a language totally lacking a gender system would be something of science fiction. As the responses have shown, this is not definitely the case but an Indo-European line of thinking of what are natural conceptual (grammatical ?) categories. Albert Ortmann, among others, made the point that e.g. Uralic languages generally lack gender. This is a point in case in Finnish. The language does not have any grammatical gender markers (in principle, no articles), no division into male/female in the pronoun system and, in particular, spoken Finnish does not make distinction between animate/inanimate. Persons, animals, objects, ideas may be referred to with the pronoun "se". Yet a slight comment to Ortmann's theory about case/gender. The point about case being realized only once in an NP does not seem conceivable, at least from Finnish point of view: attribute(s) AND Head must concord in case. Hope this is of interest. And I could point out that I am no Uralic or Fennic scholar but a native speaking linguist. Best regards - Jan Lindstrom Dept. of Scandinavian lgs University of HelsinkiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue