Universal #2001
Legacy number: 2001
| Number | 1995 |
| Original | And some [semantic] criteria appear never to define a gender completely. ... I have not found a language of any family in which there is a gender exclusively for the names of languages [even though there are languages where such a class is a subset of the nouns in one gender, e.g. many central Bantu languages]. |
| Standardized | Some semantic criteria never define a gender completely. For example, there is never a gender exclusively for the names of languages. |
| Keywords | gender |
| Domain | inflection |
| Type | unconditional |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute? |
| Basis | "over 200 languages" from all over the place |
| Source | Corbett 1991: 31 |
Discussion
Notes
As possible semantic criteria for genders, Corbett lists, expanding on the list of Raoul de la Grasserie (1898: 614-615): animate/inanimate, rational/non-rational, human/non-human, male/female, masculine/feminine/non-sexed, strong/weak, large/small, inherently powerful/powerless, socially superior/inferior,animal, insect, canine, edible, non-flesh food, solid/liquid,tree or wooden object, plant, earth-related phenomenon, heavenly body,artefact, hunting weapon, light-reflecting surface,concrete/abstract, collective, count/mass, part of whole (incl. body part),RESIDUE(for each category: possibly plus conceptual or mythological associates)(and items may also be put in an unsuitable class in order to mark importance, deviance, ...)...Combinations of these criteria (e.g. human male) may also define genders.Though Corbett wants to distinguish gender (including what is sometimes called noun classes) from noun classification, the criteria for possible noun classifiers would seem to be rather similar. The most general claim about possible classifier categories that I am aware of is that they must refer to "primary qualities" (in the sense of John Locke and others) – i.e., refer to qualities accessible to both sight and touch. (Relevant work here is by Keith Allan.) This would seem to be too restrictive, though, in light of the many classifiers whose base could be characterized as "functional".
Log in to join the discussion.
animate/inanimate, rational/non-rational, human/non-human, male/female, masculine/feminine/non-sexed,
strong/weak, large/small, inherently powerful/powerless, socially superior/inferior,
animal, insect, canine,
edible, non-flesh food, solid/liquid,
tree or wooden object, plant, earth-related phenomenon, heavenly body,
artefact, hunting weapon, light-reflecting surface,
concrete/abstract, collective, count/mass, part of whole (incl. body part),
RESIDUE
(for each category: possibly plus conceptual or mythological associates)
(and items may also be put in an unsuitable class in order to mark importance, deviance, ...)
...
Combinations of these criteria (e.g. human male) may also define genders.
Though Corbett wants to distinguish gender (including what is sometimes called noun classes) from noun classification, the criteria for possible noun classifiers would seem to be rather similar. The most general claim about possible classifier categories that I am aware of is that they must refer to "primary qualities" (in the sense of John Locke and others) – i.e., refer to qualities accessible to both sight and touch. (Relevant work here is by Keith Allan.) This would seem to be too restrictive, though, in light of the many classifiers whose base could be characterized as "functional".