Zompist Bboard Again

On topic, but tangential...

There is a massive franchise of TV shows called by most fans "Housewives." Back in 2004 there was a show called Desperate Housewives. It was a scripted soap opera, and the name was supposed to be a loaded term. The implication was that the leading women were supposed to be perfect little home makers, but were in reality complex, assertive women. Anyway, it was popular so in 2006 The Real Housewives of Orange County came out. Producers made it clear that the name was not a coincidence. Now Real Housewives is such a phenomenon, and its piggy-back marketing so effective, that if you mention Desperate Housewives today people will assume you mean Real Housewives. But Real Housewives is a reality show about rich and famous women; there is no intention of irony between the prim exterior and the seedy interior. Instead we have a deliberately gendered title with no rhetorical purpose behind it. I wonder if this kind of dumbing-down could happen with a word like "bitch" or "bastard."

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 8:53 am I'm more of a fan of [y].

Good point. Or [ɯ].

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 5:16 pm To me nurse does have a "prototypically feminine" sound to it to an extent, but speaking of male nurses does not strike me as odd at all. So yeah, why not go with "birthing nurse"?

Because it's illegal. Nurse is a legally protected term, like doctor.

"Birthing assistant" then?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:52 am In English to me the only terms where gender really ends up being a problem are -man terms like mailman, where degendering then requires either using -person, which sounds awkward (I have never heard anyone actually say mailperson), or using an entirely different term such as letter carrier. However, English is a language where masculine terms other than -man terms have over time been degendered while their feminine counterparts have largely been discarded, leaving behind pretty much just waitress and actress. (Of course I do not get the objections to gender-neutral guys since it is consistent with this process, which English-speaking feminists have no problem with for any other terms.)

I was actually thinking of the gendered pronouns in English. Referring to them as "gendered grammar" was a mistake since their use is often called "natural gender" in contrast to "grammatical gender".

Bengali does make use of (Edit: optional) feminine suffixes, especially in formal language. (Edit: This is almost always natural gender.) It also has traces of grammatical gender proper, along with some bizarre artifacts. Eg. The usual word for river নদী comes with a feminine suffix. If you remove it, you get a masculine word for river নদ, which can be optionally used for especially large rivers like the Indus. However, referring to the Ganges as নদ is a case of misgendering. The Ganges is of course a goddess.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:31 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:52 am In English to me the only terms where gender really ends up being a problem are -man terms like mailman, where degendering then requires either using -person, which sounds awkward (I have never heard anyone actually say mailperson), or using an entirely different term such as letter carrier. However, English is a language where masculine terms other than -man terms have over time been degendered while their feminine counterparts have largely been discarded, leaving behind pretty much just waitress and actress. (Of course I do not get the objections to gender-neutral guys since it is consistent with this process, which English-speaking feminists have no problem with for any other terms.)

I was actually thinking of the gendered pronouns in English. Referring to them as "gendered grammar" was a mistake since their use is often called "natural gender" in contrast to "grammatical gender".

Bengali does make use of (Edit: optional) feminine suffixes, especially in formal language. (Edit: This is almost always natural gender.) It also has traces of grammatical gender proper, along with some bizarre artifacts. Eg. The usual word for river নদী comes with a feminine suffix. If you remove it, you get a masculine word for river নদ, which can be optionally used for especially large rivers like the Indus. However, referring to the Ganges as নদ is a case of misgendering. The Ganges is of course a goddess.

Thats still for all practicable purposes grammatical gender except insofar as it doesn't have either agreement or some other noticeable affect on morphology or syntax of the language.

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:16 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:31 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:52 am In English to me the only terms where gender really ends up being a problem are -man terms like mailman, where degendering then requires either using -person, which sounds awkward (I have never heard anyone actually say mailperson), or using an entirely different term such as letter carrier. However, English is a language where masculine terms other than -man terms have over time been degendered while their feminine counterparts have largely been discarded, leaving behind pretty much just waitress and actress. (Of course I do not get the objections to gender-neutral guys since it is consistent with this process, which English-speaking feminists have no problem with for any other terms.)

I was actually thinking of the gendered pronouns in English. Referring to them as "gendered grammar" was a mistake since their use is often called "natural gender" in contrast to "grammatical gender".

Bengali does make use of (Edit: optional) feminine suffixes, especially in formal language. (Edit: This is almost always natural gender.) It also has traces of grammatical gender proper, along with some bizarre artifacts. Eg. The usual word for river নদী comes with a feminine suffix. If you remove it, you get a masculine word for river নদ, which can be optionally used for especially large rivers like the Indus. However, referring to the Ganges as নদ is a case of misgendering. The Ganges is of course a goddess.

Thats still for all practicable purposes grammatical gender except insofar as it doesn't have either agreement or some other noticeable affect on morphology or syntax of the language.

Claiming that is grammatical gender is like claiming that English has grammatical gender because of the -ess suffix and the historical tendency to refer to ships and states with she/her.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:00 pm Claiming that is grammatical gender is like claiming that English has grammatical gender because of the -ess suffix and the historical tendency to refer to ships and states with she/her.

I for one would argue on that basis (plus stuff like refering to the sun as "he", but not counting the "-ess" suffix) that English has grammatical gender, just with very simple rules for assigning it.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:18 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:00 pm Claiming that is grammatical gender is like claiming that English has grammatical gender because of the -ess suffix and the historical tendency to refer to ships and states with she/her.

I for one would argue on that basis (plus stuff like refering to the sun as "he", but not counting the "-ess" suffix) that English has grammatical gender, just with very simple rules for assigning it.

The thing is that referring to inanimate entities with pronouns other than it is somewhat dated in English. I personally would refer to ships, states, and the sun with it myself.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:18 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 1:00 pm Claiming that is grammatical gender is like claiming that English has grammatical gender because of the -ess suffix and the historical tendency to refer to ships and states with she/her.

I for one would argue on that basis (plus stuff like refering to the sun as "he", but not counting the "-ess" suffix) that English has grammatical gender, just with very simple rules for assigning it.

It's probably simplest to say that English has semantic gender— that is, words don't have gender, referents do. This is similar to Tamil.

The contrast is with lexical gender where the choice of word dictates pronoun usage and agreement (e.g. French un homme / une personne).

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:16 am Thats still for all practicable purposes grammatical gender except insofar as it doesn't have either agreement or some other noticeable affect on morphology or syntax of the language.

I agree with Travis B. that it's similar to the -ess suffix in English. In English, referring to a woman as "he" is either blatantly incorrect or some kind of a roundabout insult. In contrast, the Bengali feminine suffixes are optional, not required. It's not ungrammatical not to use them, but they make your language sound more formal. (At least according to what I remember. It has been years since I've been seriously involved with Bengali.)

The river case is a rare exception of gender intruding somewhere that it doesn't obviously belong.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 5:59 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:16 am Thats still for all practicable purposes grammatical gender except insofar as it doesn't have either agreement or some other noticeable affect on morphology or syntax of the language.

I agree with Travis B. that it's similar to the -ess suffix in English. In English, referring to a woman as "he" is either blatantly incorrect or some kind of a roundabout insult. In contrast, the Bengali feminine suffixes are optional, not required. It's not ungrammatical not to use them, but they make your language sound more formal. (At least according to what I remember. It has been years since I've been seriously involved with Bengali.)

The river case is a rare exception of gender intruding somewhere that it doesn't obviously belong.

Likewise, referring to a person other than a newborn (and that's mostly in fixed expressions) with it in English is a clear insult, whereas you get neuter words like Mädchen in German which refer to people without such implication whatsoever.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm It's probably simplest to say that English has semantic gender— that is, words don't have gender, referents do. This is similar to Tamil.

The contrast is with lexical gender where the choice of word dictates pronoun usage and agreement (e.g. French un homme / une personne).

You still have agreement with personal pronouns, but I can live with such a distinction

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 7:41 pm Likewise, referring to a person other than a newborn (and that's mostly in fixed expressions) with it in English is a clear insult, whereas you get neuter words like Mädchen in German which refer to people without such implication whatsoever.

Correct in principle, although in colloquial German you will often find that natural gender overrides grammatical gender in such cases; especially as the narration / conversation moves on, people will switch from neuter pronouns to female pronouns.