simplification … in the typologically expected direction … In the process of category-collapsing, we normally expect as well as find the non-human or neuter as the unmarked one which takes over the function of ‘human’ and not vice versa.
Standardized
When gender distinctions are being neutralized in pronominal or other relevant paradigms by way of morphological replacement, non-human or neuter forms win out, replacing human/non-neuter forms, rather than vice versa.
Hálakki Kanna#a (Dravidian): for demonstrative/3rd person pronouns, the neuter (= not human male) form has ousted the human male form. Germanic lgs eliminating gender distinctions in the plural never (so far as I know) generalized the neuter; the masculine or more rarely the feminine tended to be the winner. The question, however, is whether these were morphological replacements rather than phonological obliterations of formal contrasts.
Curiously, Krishnamurti assumes that Inanimate is marked vis-a-vis Animate, Non-human vis-a-vis Human, Non-male vis-a-vis Male. His claim therefore is that marked wins against unmarked in neutralizations! Later in the paper (2001: 149-150), more plausibly but with no comment, he has markedness values the other way round, with non-human/neuter now as unmarked.
Curiously, Krishnamurti assumes that Inanimate is marked vis-a-vis Animate, Non-human vis-a-vis Human, Non-male vis-a-vis Male. His claim therefore is that marked wins against unmarked in neutralizations! Later in the paper (2001: 149-150), more plausibly but with no comment, he has markedness values the other way round, with non-human/neuter now as unmarked.