 |
Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What gender are you? |
| Male |
|
83% |
[ 15 ] |
| Female |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kiri wrote: | I realise this is some serious necromancing but oh well... 
I'm thinking about having an unusual grammatical gender system in a conlang. And I need your oppinion on it.
How about having three distinctions that combine. Everything is either:
Hot or Cold;
Sharp or Blunt;
Light or Dark;
therefore a gender marking would be HSL (e.g. fire), or CSL (e.g. a cold knife), etc.
What do you think? |
What matters with gender systems or noun-class systems isn't so much the semantics behind the gender-classifications as the grammatical fact that other words have to agree with a noun's gender.
See http://wals.info/chapter/32.
Gender is a "concordial noun-class system".
"Concordial" means other words have to agree with it.
A noun's gender is lexically-determined; it can't change and still be the same noun.
You should read Greville G. Corbett's book "Gender".
Some languages have a noun-classification system that is not a concordial noun-class system. For instance, some languages have numeral classifiers, and some have possessive classifiers.
http://wals.info/chapter/55
http://wals.info/chapter/59
See the languages Pohnpeian, Tehit, and Tlingit.
If a language does have a concordial noun-class system, it may or may not be called a gender system, depending on the linguist. Some linguists only call it a "gender" system if it has relatively few genders, for instance, five or fewer. Some linguists only call it a "gender" system if at least one of the genders is sex-based; all and only human males, or all and only animate males, or all and only human females, or all and only animate females.
Africanists usually refer to "noun-class systems" instead of "gender systems", even when the language they study has a concordial noun-class system some of whose classes are sex-based.
Consider Arapesh (Mountain), Hunzib, Ingush, Maung, Mixtec (Chalcatongo), Ngan'gityemerri, Nunggubuyu, and Yimas. Those are all non-African languages with five or more genders, some of which are sex-based.
Consider Babungo, Chichewa, Diola-Fogny, Fula (Guinean), Ju|'hoan, Kisi, Kongo, Lingala, Luvale, Nkore-Kiga, Nyamwezi, Nyiha, Shona, Supyire, Swahili, and Zulu. Those are all African languages with very many concordial noun-classes none of which are sex-based.
Zande is an African language with a four-gender sex-based gender system.
In most languages with genders or concordial noun-classes, most genders or classes have a "semantic core", a set of nouns in that gender that are assigned to that gender based on their meaning. In many such languages, however, some or most genders or classes also contain nouns that are assigned there for phonological or morphological reasons; because they sound like they belong there, or because they decline as if they belong there. And there is usually one gender or noun-class that's used as a default; any new coined or borrowed noun will go there if there isn't a reason to put it somewhere else.
Your idea of having gender consist of two or more parameters makes sense, at least to me. You'll need to have other words (e.g. adjectives, articles, etc.) agree with each such parameter.
Because gender is supposed to be a constant lexical feature of a noun, I don't think "hot" and "cold" are good as bases for gender-like concordial noun-class, since they are likely to change during the span of existence of the object to which the noun refers. But you may disagree and that's fine; or, it may be that in your con-culture, whatever's hot probably stays hot and whatever's cold probably stays cold.
Sharp vs blunt probably won't change unless someone makes it change. Light vs dark may be an inherent feature of an object. Possibly they're good semantic bases for gender.
Look at the semantics of the various noun-classes in various languages with lots of noun-classes. Those are good examples of the kinds of semantic bases for genders that are plausible.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kiri
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 471
Location: Latvia/Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your in-depth answer. It was very helpful, as always 
Maybe instead of hot<>cold I should use strong(hard)<>weak(soft)? Those seem to be things that are less likely to change, although it is still possible (e.g. melting iron? I don't know, there can be a special word for iron in its molten form so maybe it works) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 1621
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiri wrote: | | Thank you for your in-depth answer. It was very helpful, as always |
Thanks for saying so!
| Kiri wrote: | | Maybe instead of hot<>cold I should use strong(hard)<>weak(soft)? |
In fact there are natlangs that have gender-like noun-classes that have such a semantic basis. You might need to figure out what to do with things that are soft but strong (or maybe not).
| Kiri wrote: | | Those seem to be things that are less likely to change, although it is still possible (e.g. melting iron? |
Well, an agent or a force can sharpen what's blunt and can blunt what's sharp; and an agent or a force can lighten what's dark or darken what's light. But ordinarily that won't just happen in a fairly short time if nobody and nothing makes it happen.
Hot things OTOH will probably cool off if nothing and nobody keeps them hot; and it will happen pretty fast compared to the existence-span of the object.
| Kiri wrote: | | I don't know, there can be a special word for iron in its molten form so maybe it works) |
Well, in English, there's a special word for ice in its molten form. So I think so. Some languages have a word for water or for fire as an agent, and a suppletive word for water or for fire as a patient; there seems to be no transparent phonological relationship. So why not two words of different genders for what's molten vs what's frozen?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
