TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Lira

FAO: Lira

Why do languages in the PIE origin have grammatical genders? How/why did that become a thing?

It's one of the common quirks of human communication. Here's a quick breakdown about PIE for the Pie

We all have two competing "forces" when we speak: on the one hand, we're lazy by default, so we usually try to say as much as possible with as little effort as we can get away with. On the other hand, we also want to make sure we're being understood and our listener (or reader) knows what we're talking about. So, we give as many clues about what we're referring to as we can! For instance, we might tell our friends we like trance music and leave it at that because that's about all they'll know about the music we like anyway. But, when we're with our loved ones who know their trance music, it's probably best to be a little less concise because the label might refer to both progressive trance and full-on psychedelic trance, among other subgenres, so we might say something like "Uplifting Dutch trance" to really get the meaning across.

Now, as we tend to fall back on the same expressions over time, we start to slack off a little and the words get glued to one another if their presence is predictable. As a familiar example, people in ye olde England would say what they willed before doing stuff. "I will go" meant that they just wanted to go somewhere. Over time, you'd say you willed whatever happened in the future and "will" became obligatory whenever things happened in the future. This is what we call grammaticalisation and it's something all languages undergo. That's where grammar comes from: yesterday's words are today's morphemes.

I think something similar, but much more complex, must've happened to the ancestor of Proto-Indo-European because at some point in time all sorts of information became glued to nouns, such as whether it was the subject or the object. But here's the real kicker: different words became attached to different endings for some reason, and speakers just carried on with it keeping these differences and creating different word groups. These endings were then attached to the adjectives that modified these nouns, so that whoever you were speaking to could easily see what that trait belonged to. Let me give you an example. If a girl was the subject, the adjectives that described her would have one ending. If a boy was the subject, another ending would be attached to the adjective. This regular correlation leads to what we call "noun classes". Because there was a correlation with gender, the Europeans who first described grammar couldn't have known any better. They called the different noun classes in their languages and the agreements they entailed as... genders. That's something of a misnomer though because, sure, "girl" is feminine, and "boy" is masculine, but that's just a fraction of the words we use.

So, because genders (and number, and grammatical cases, and so on) all became well-established and obligatory in PIE by the time it spread over Europe and India and everything in-between, its descendants (be it English, Portuguese or Hindi) passed these grammatical genders on to us because we tend to learn the languages spoken around us as children and wing it as we go through life, instead of creating a whole new language from nothing every generation or so. It's quite tricky for a language to get rid of something so basic such as a whole grammatical category, and English only got away with it because the phonology changed dramatically in the British Isles due to viking presence there.

So, how did it come about? Speakers added regular information after nouns (such as grammatical role and number), distinguished between different groups, it became so common it was seen as obligatory and regular, and this led to different noun classes which we now call gender.

Now, on to why.

As to why anyone in their right mind would still do this despite none of us knowing why PIE speakers started doing it... it helps us make distinction when the speaker is talking about more than one thing at a time. I speak a language that's quite gendered compared to English, so if you want to say in Portuguese, it's much clearer to me if you say "as casas vermelhas e o pr�dio preto" for "the red houses and the black building" or "the houses red and the building black" (mind you, the number and gender agreement dovetails nicely with the words they refer to) than if you just say "o casas vermelho e o pr�dio preto" - which makes perfect sense in English, but I suddenly have questions in Portuguese as to how many houses there actually are what colour refers to what.

It's worth noting that many languages do something similar, with a different twist. Some African languages have up to 10 different classes (we don't tend to use the word gender in this case), and some East Asian languages distinguish nouns only when counting them, so you can tell for sure what's being counted.

So, yeah, I oversimplified it a bit because lots of stuff needs to happen for grammaticalisation to occur, but it's one of the coolest things in historical linguistics. Is there something more specific you might want to know though?

LOL, "I oversimplified a bit." OKAY LIRA


I feel it's obvious which words and ideas, and why mixed groups would be genderfied. It's just the patriacrchy (lol).

What you're saying is what I suspected....over time it became convoluted and now that's just the way it is.



I do think there's a huge link between language and the collective unconscious, of which there is the concept of divine masculine and feminine, yin yang, etc., etc. Which is why I think it's so easy to understand and accept that words and ideas can have masculine or feminine designation.

But I am not a linguist lol.


I'm relearning French. This inquiry sponsored by my need to have more specific understanding.


THANKS

I do appreciate your thorough answer!

I'm glad you liked it

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson LOL, "I oversimplified a bit." OKAY LIRA

No, seriously, the discussion around this is the stuff of nightmares, wars have been fought with less wrath

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson I do think there's a huge link between language and the collective unconscious, of which there is the concept of divine masculine and feminine, yin yang, etc., etc. Which is why I think it's so easy to understand and accept that words and ideas can have masculine or feminine designation. But I am not a linguist lol.

You're on a path that quite a few linguists find interesting, actually. Look up the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it'll probably be of your interest.

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson I'm relearning French. This inquiry sponsored by my need to have more specific understanding.

Yeah, French is chaos. Their counting system is further proof it's hard for speakers to shake off old habits, heh.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You're on a path that quite a few linguists find interesting, actually. Look up the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it'll probably be of your interest.

Fascinating. The scope of language is truly incredible.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yeah, French is chaos. Their counting system is further proof it's hard for speakers to shake off old habits, heh.

French came quite easily to me all through school but I lost interest after tenth grade. Relearning it has been something I've been saying I'd do for a few years now. The class is slow but the teacher is from France, so she's teaching us the formal way but also comparing how French Canadians speak it (lol). It comes back quick!


After French, Spanish!

Slightly off topic, but why do people yodel? Why did they begin yodelling? What are they trying to accomplish with a yodel? Did anyone ever tell them it doesn�t sound that cool?

We don't condone to yodeling over here. We jojk instead

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You're on a path that quite a few linguists find interesting, actually. Look up the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it'll probably be of your interest.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the exact opposite of what Jenny is saying, if I'm reading the tea leaves right. She's saying that grammatical genders are reflecting some subconscious human tendency to think of inanimate objects as having genders. You're saying that language is shaping our perception of those inanimate objects so we begin thinking of them as having genders.

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson

Dude lol I couldn�t watch ron and stampi when I was younger because it would give me migraines

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the exact opposite of what Jenny is saying, if I'm reading the tea leaves right. She's saying that grammatical genders are reflecting some subconscious human tendency to think of inanimate objects as having genders. You're saying that language is shaping our perception of those inanimate objects so we begin thinking of them as having genders.

I wouldn't say that's opposite though. It definitely aligns right with it imo. It's chicken v. egg stuff I think.

Obviously way out of my wheelhouse, aside from simply being human and using language. It just seems to me there is an instinctual aspect to language... But is that because it's shaped by the collective unconscious or because language shapes the collective unconscious?

quote:

Originally posted by planetaryplayer Dude lol I couldn�t watch ron and stampi when I was younger because it would give me migraines

I JUST learned John K is a mega groomer/pedo/diddler.

Ren & Stimpy! Happy, happy, happy, joy, joy, joy

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the exact opposite of what Jenny is saying, if I'm reading the tea leaves right. She's saying that grammatical genders are reflecting some subconscious human tendency to think of inanimate objects as having genders. You're saying that language is shaping our perception of those inanimate objects so we begin thinking of them as having genders.

I understand your point, but I told her she was on a path that linguists find interesting, not that there was a perfect match, because the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is closely related to what she's saying... albeit with the polarity reversed, depending on how you look at it.

Given her starting point, I could have suggested cognitive linguistics and mentioned "Fire, Women, and other Dangerous Things" which will always be my favourite book title... but the way she thinks about language reminds me a lot of my father, as he is heavily influenced by Jungian psychology and every time I tell him about my research he says "but can't that be explained by the collective unconscious?" so I thought that was the best place for her to start is the bit that really piqued his interest. My dad was thrilled when I told him about linguistic relativity, because it's sort of how he thinks, but on its head, whereas he finds cognitive linguistics "dry".

Funnily enough, I had also typed "chicken and egg" and clicked on preview reply to see if there were any typos when I realised she had beaten me to it.

quote:

Originally posted by planetaryplayer Slightly off topic, but why do people yodel? Why did they begin yodelling? What are they trying to accomplish with a yodel? Did anyone ever tell them it doesn�t sound that cool?

Of course, in true Lira fashion, I'm going to answer this funny question honestly, because I had something else to do but was quite curious myself, so I actually looked it up

Why do people yodel? There was no mobile phone coverage in the Alps before antennas were created. It's a format that works well over long distances, probably because it's so cringe that everyone can hear it. Apparently similar forms of communication have been created in other mountainous areas, such as the Solomon Islands and Romania, where people spend too much time alone and lose track of what is embarrassing.

What are they trying to accomplish with a yodel? Apart from talking to sheep and other animals, such as people, over long distances, it's a way of punishing people who have clearly lost a bet. Case in point, whatever that poor girl is doing:



Did anyone ever tell them it doesn�t sound that cool? I mean... Have you seen their clothes!? They're the hipsters of the Alps, I'm sure they yodel ironically.

Edit: WAIT, WHAT!? TELL ME JOHN K ISN'T WHO I THINK IT IS!

quote:

Originally posted by Silky Johnson I wouldn't say that's opposite though. It definitely aligns right with it imo. It's chicken v. egg stuff I think. Obviously way out of my wheelhouse, aside from simply being human and using language. It just seems to me there is an instinctual aspect to language... But is that because it's shaped by the collective unconscious or because language shapes the collective unconscious?

I would argue it's more "nature versus nurture" - the question of whether language arises to reflect the inner workings of our minds, or whether our tendency to think in language means our language shapes our thoughts. And like "nature versus nurture", as far as I'm aware linguists generally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Ren & Stimpy! Happy, happy, happy, joy, joy, joy I understand your point, but I told her she was on a path that linguists find interesting, not that there was a perfect match, because the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is closely related to what she's saying... albeit with the polarity reversed, depending on how you look at it. Given her starting point, I could have suggested cognitive linguistics and mentioned "Fire, Women, and other Dangerous Things" which will always be my favourite book title... but the way she thinks about language reminds me a lot of my father, as he is heavily influenced by Jungian psychology and every time I tell him about my research he says "but can't that be explained by the collective unconscious?" so I thought that was the best place for her to start is the bit that really piqued his interest. My dad was thrilled when I told him about linguistic relativity, because it's sort of how he thinks, but on its head, whereas he finds cognitive linguistics "dry". Funnily enough, I had also typed "chicken and egg" and clicked on preview reply to see if there were any typos when I realised she had beaten me to it.

Hah! I knew my thought had merit lol. The fact that a layperson thinks/feels these things validates the whole nature of it (linguistics, the mind, etc) Imo.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I would argue it's more "nature versus nurture" - the question of whether language arises to reflect the inner workings of our minds, or whether our tendency to think in language means our language shapes our thoughts. And like "nature versus nurture", as far as I'm aware linguists generally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Tomayto, tomahto, no? This convo is becoming meta lol.

It feels intuitive that some of the first words humans ever used probably mimicked the sound the thing the word refers to makes. Well, onomatopoeia. A human's perception of the thing in the world affected how the word sounded. It's fascinating to think how language somehow, gradually, evolved to the degree that at some point someone had enough words to use to explain a new concept to someone else without necessarily demonstrating the concept physically.

To me, to simply say that either language shapes our thinking or our thinking shapes our language wouldn't quite cut it, but hearing my Danish girlfriend try to communicate a phone number to her family over the phone clearly shows that language shapes the thinking of at least the Danish, and not always in a good way!

Right. But let's bring it back to my specific question then, about the masculine/feminization of words and grammar. This is exactly why I was asking how/why it became a thing.

Well put it like this. I think it's self evident that grammatical genders don't represent a collective human subconscious because many languages simply don't have them. If, for example, humans innately believed there was something "masculine" about tables and "feminine" about doors, as suggested by German, that would crop up all over the world. But as a native English speaker, I think that notion is nonsensical. They're inanimate objects made out of wood. Of course they don't have genders.

If native German speakers do walk around thinking about tables as somehow male in nature, that demonstrates language is shaping their thoughts, but it proves nothing about the inverse. So the two notions are not circular.

Also, it's worth noting the study of the relationship between language and meaning is actually less the domain of linguistics than it is semiotics.

That sounds more like anthropomorphising objects using gender. I mean, yeah duh. Just gonna reiterate what I already said which is that there exists some innate feeling about words that makes them either masculine or feminine. Language arose to communicate thoughts and ideas, thoughts and ideas shaped the world, ideas about the world came to inform the language, and so on and so on.

I guess my question or whatever point I'm making depends on one's spiritual beliefs, and I believe within all humans exists both the divine masculine and feminine, that I do think HAS to play some role in the continued assignment of gender to words and grammar, well after the point of them having a clear rule of attachment/modification.

I understand the origin of the rules as Lira explained it. The reason I wanted to know is because in my French class, someone asked how to know which words were masculine or feminine. And the teacher said it's just the vocabulary at this point, just have to memorize the words. Well who and what decided that? Hence my joke about the patriarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Also, it's worth noting the study of the relationship between language and meaning is actually less the domain of linguistics than it is semiotics.

Oh? Well then who is TA's resident Robert Langdon? Lololol

Yeah, I'm afraid that theory just isn't borne out in practice. There are many, many words which have opposite grammatical genders in different languages. The aforementioned "table" is masculine in German and Polish but feminine in Spanish and French. It's completely arbitrary.

Thanks. I appreciate your tidy, yet boring contribution.

Like the Microsoft paperclip, I'm here to provide the help nobody wants.

THREAD CLOSED

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.