52 Comments This discussion is locked.
Grammatical gender has nothing to do with social gender in humans or with biological sex, so I don't think any speakers of romance languages think inanimate objects have a gender in that sense. It's just a grammatical system that happens to intersect with gender but it's not ascribing masculinity or femininity on objects, those words are purely grammatical categories unless you're actually talking about men or women. German has three genders, and languages like Swahili have like nine or so noun "categories" which is basically the same thing as linguistic gender... there are just a lot more of them.
...so I don't think any speakers of romance languages think inanimate objects have a gender in that sense.
Turns out it does have an effect:
In recent years, various experiments have shown that grammatical genders can shape the feelings and associations of speakers toward objects around them. In the 1990s, for example, psychologists compared associations between speakers of German and Spanish. There are many inanimate nouns whose genders in the two languages are reversed. A German bridge is feminine (die Brücke), for instance, but el puente is masculine in Spanish; and the same goes for clocks, apartments, forks, newspapers, pockets, shoulders, stamps, tickets, violins, the sun, the world and love. On the other hand, an apple is masculine for Germans but feminine in Spanish, and so are chairs, brooms, butterflies, keys, mountains, stars, tables, wars, rain and garbage. When speakers were asked to grade various objects on a range of characteristics, Spanish speakers deemed bridges, clocks and violins to have more “manly properties” like strength, but Germans tended to think of them as more slender or elegant. With objects like mountains or chairs, which are “he” in German but “she” in Spanish, the effect was reversed.
In a different experiment, French and Spanish speakers were asked to assign human voices to various objects in a cartoon. When French speakers saw a picture of a fork (la fourchette), most of them wanted it to speak in a woman’s voice, but Spanish speakers, for whom el tenedor is masculine, preferred a gravelly male voice for it. More recently, psychologists have even shown that “gendered languages” imprint gender traits for objects so strongly in the mind that these associations obstruct speakers’ ability to commit information to memory.
More at the article.
I agree with what you're saying here. You are absolutely correct in your explanation but, at the same time, I cannot understand the whole point of inanimate objects having grammatical gender. This system seems to complicate the language for some mysterious reason that is not apparent to me! NB. this is meant to respond to MaxGonzale16's comment above : "Grammatical gender has nothing to do with social gender....." Unless in the correct order some of the comments in a discussion stream don't always make sense! I have noticed that sometimes, when I have responded to a certain comment, this doesn't necessarily appear directly below the relevant comment, which I would think it should.
That's not the attitude you should go into language learning with. Is grammatical gender useless? It seems like it is. But does it exist in a lot of languages despite how unnecessary it seems? You bet, and it you're learning a language with it then it's better to get used to it and learn how to work with it than focusing on how illogical it seems. And always remember, it's arbitrary grammatical categories, they're not somehow implying that tables are womanly and forks are manly.
In response to MaxGonzale16, I would say, on the contrary. In my opinion there is nothing remotely at fault with wondering about details of language and its development. I find it fascinating. It certainly doesn't indicate being focused on the wrong aspect, as you remarked. For instance, linguistics and etymology are just other dimensions of language learning. Being interested in the way languages have evolved doesn't mean that I don't accept the result, including the use of gender in, as you point out, many European languages. However, I am not prepared to slavishly learn by rote the gender of every noun in whatever language I am tackling. I believe in learning by the immersion technique. As a Briton, I speak very basic German fairly fluently, which has three genders to cope with. Tending to speak by feel, as children do, I just use whichever gender and case seems to sound right. Sometimes it happens to be correct, sometimes not, but the most important thing is that practice makes perfect. Duolingo is the next best thing to actively holding conversations with native speakers. NB.This is intended to respond to MaxGonzale16's comment "That's not the attitude....." which has now moved down the list. see below.
I didn't mean to be insensitive or un-PC. I just took this dang unit like ten times and the last time was nearly there when I missed HIS skirt was white. Threw me over the top. .. .while it does make sense and all, I just wish some of the sentences were not so tricky. We're all learning. And at this stage, I think it is a little foul to throw in tricky questions like that.
Afoita's right. Brownie points to this tool for trying to dish out unconventional and unexpected sentences, however, these always catch you off guard if you are already focusing like mad on getting the grammar and syntax right. But who knows, it may turn out to be an excellent exercise for making your mind more flexible.
This is why i do not actively study grammar. If you listen to enough of the language, learn full sentences, you will start to notice what kinds of sentences use certain words. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to remember it all. Think about how you use English, you don't think in your head about which tenses or words to use, you just say what sounds right. And honestly many native English speakers make mistakes every now and then with their grammar, so although not impossible, I think its a huge unnecessary burden to try to "master" the grammar of another language by thinking about it. Just read and listen to enough natives and you will pick up on what "sounds" proper.
Even though I just started Portuguese a few days ago it was very obvious to me that dele meant his. Why are you so bitter about not having grasped that yet that you feel the need to ❤❤❤❤❤ about transpersons? Women can wear pants and men should be able to wear skirts in an equal world.
As Portugal and Spain have once been conquered by the Arabs, or Muslims to be precise, for a long time until the Reconquista, some Islamic traditions have influenced Iberian culture. There is a traditional Arab dance performed by men wearing skirts which is called the Tanoura. Hence this it is not that far fledged and has nothing to do with transgender ... although you could argue that there quiet some transgenders in Brazil nowadays.
Nevertheless it's quiet a neat trick to always pay attention, instead of just typing what's at the top of your mind.
That is also where the other official language, Mirandese is spoken.
Though I think lace-trimmed skirts is more descriptive than lacy in this case. :)
Yes, Mirandese is definitely a minority language. I have heard it spoken and have heard bands local to the area singing in Mirandese. You are probably right that mostly the white skirts of the pauliteiros are lace-trimmed but I have seen some that had a lot more lace than just trimming on the edges. They looked very frilly, hence lacy! NB. I spelt it wrongly in the first instance! Correct spelling is lacy.
I have no problem with people being trans, nor with nonsense sentences…but sentences that seem actively constructed to mislead are off-putting, not encouraging. It's not as though there are actual lessons on how to use dele and dela, here, other than examples. So if one of the first examples you hit, is gender-bending (in the social sense), it sows grammatical confusion (in a way that "the bee writes a book" does not).