Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!pesnta!hplabs!nsc!voder!gino
From: gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Gender-specific neuter pronouns
Message-ID: <655@voder.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 20:26:19 EST
Article-I.D.: voder.655
Posted: Thu Jan 31 20:26:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 21:44:48 EST
References: <437@ptsfa.UUCP> <1285@bbncca.ARPA> <2285@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 21

> Harrumph, harrumph. Then I'd expect that 'homo' would be of neuter gender, 
> which Latin provides, but it's male. The "default sex" in Latin is male, just
Gender in Latin is a grammatical category, not a sex.  Examples are the
two feminine nouns `agricola' and `nauta' - farmer and sailor; these
nouns almost invariably described MEN.

> But apparently contracts written in archaic French  refer to "personnes",
> which is of course feminine in French. And then to keep the gender straight,
> so to speak, the contract refers to these persons as "elles" [they, female]
> later on. How would modern French handle this?
Same way; `la personne' ==> use `elle' as pronoun.  Note, for instance, that in
French we have `le car' and `la voiture', both meaning `automobile'.  So in a
sentence using `car', you'd say `il', but if you said `voiture' you'd say
`elle'.  Gender is much less biological in French than in English.

It is not, in general, safe to use categories, feelings, and connotations
belonging to one {language + culture} to reason about another.  Better to get
into the genius of the second one and then think about it.
-- 
Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
Support Bulgarian gajda players.