Modern English has lost its grammatical gender, but does have the three genders which are used for nouns and pronouns: generally masculine is used for concrete words, feminine for abstract words and neuter for animals.
Chris Weimer wrote:Gender is merely a way of classifying nouns in a language.
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Modern English has lost its grammatical gender, but does have the three genders which are used for nouns and pronouns: generally masculine is used for concrete words, feminine for abstract words and neuter for animals.
That does not sound like the Modern English I know...
Sanskrit wrote:I guess I was confused with Dutch, where concrete words are often masculine and abstract words are feminine.
Bert wrote:That may very well be the general rule. I don't know. Ship is fem. in Dutch as well.
BTW Sanskrit, do you know if there is a rule concerning when to use which of the two definite articles in Dutch (de, het?)
I know which goes with which word but I don't know the rule.
Hammurabi wrote:I think that there should be a more profound explanaition for the genders in certain languages, I mean, like Plato said "the names are not only words, but a notion of the essence of the object that is named"
Isn't the sea what Algy calls it: a great sweet mother? The snotgreen sea.
Thanks. That's interesting. I've only seen abstract names or feminine names for boats.Sanskrit wrote: There are two words for ship in Dutch. The first is "(het) schip," this is a neuter word. The second is "(de) boot," which is both masculine and feminine according to my dictionary.
Sanskrit wrote:"De" is used with words that are masculine, feminine or both masculine and feminine. "Het" is used for neuter words.
Chris Weimer wrote:Plato's ideas of words stems from his philosophy, which we now call Platonism, which stated that objects on earth are merely based off of their ideals in "heaven". Not only does his philosophy suck, but his linguistic analysis sucks as well. The idea of the "essence" of words is thoroughly false and demonstrated so by historical linguistics.
Bert wrote:How about; "Het mannetje" (The little man) and "het meisje" (The (little) girl.) Maybe all singular diminutives are grammatical neuter?
swiftnicholas wrote:Hi Hammurabi You're so brave to be reading Joyce, since English is like your third or fourth language
IreneY wrote:Having said that, perhaps the different people called sea a she because one minute she's calm next minute she throws a temper tantrum?
Paul wrote:Have you actually read any Plato, or are your deep insights - "his philosophy sucks" - the result of a survey course in "ancient thought"?
It's too bad you weren't around during the lifetimes of Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. You could have spared them needless study.
As to the achievements of historical linguistics, even Saussure conceded that "only some signs are absolutely arbitrary".
There is also the amusing historical anecdote that he considered Esperanto, whose fledgling movement was at the time headed by his brother, to be wrong-headed.
Chris Weimer wrote:Oh, yes, do beat that strawman! Beat him hard, and beat him good, because you haven't even bothered to attack my position. Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.
Paul wrote:OK. I brushed my teeth and went to bed. It's a new day and, guess what, your "position", as you so bravely call it, remains a mere assertion; one that borders on the inarticulate.
Consequently, even an idiot like me has no trouble "correctly identifying your position".
Perhaps if you put forth something meatier than "his philosophy sucks", a conversation would be possible.
Sorry, this is still no more than assertion.
Chris Weimer wrote:First of all, I despise all metaphysics and any philosophical inquiry that has no scientific base behind it. If it is not rooted in actual facts, then it is not valid, and especially not valid if it proposes unscientific yet supernatural explanations, such as Forms (and the "Ideal Form").
Chris Weimer wrote:Were you expecting me to bring out every scientific paper that contradicts the notion of the divine?
Chris Weimer wrote:I really find it hilarious that not only did Paul and Hammurabi rip their passages out of context without any commentary, as if these philosophers should always be regarded as absolute truth (nevermind that Nietzsche ripped Plato a new one) but that they chose the passages full of blatant ad hominem. Oh yeah, real mature guys! Keep up the hard quote mining!
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:So your favorite enemy is Nietzche, eh? Why is he your enemy, and why is he your favorite
Chris Weimer wrote: Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.
PeterD wrote:I am often reminded ( ) by pretty, French women ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests