Re: Gender (was: Homosexuality and gender identity)

En réponse à John Cowan :


>Sounds like a good plan.
At least it works, and doesn't create bizarre constructions or strange
agreement patterns :)) .

>BTW, how strange would it be to use "ils" of a group that just happens
>to contain only women?
It would be completely incorrect. If you refer to a group only of women
with "ils", you would likely be at least verbally corrected (and you should
expect to be subject of the wrath of said group of women ;)))) ). There's
just no way one can refer to one woman with "il", so you can't refer to
only women with "ils". "Ils" for a mixed group of men and women is only
there because there's need for a default, and even then this default is
quite often considered uneasy to use (especially when the group is made
majoritarily of women). Personally, I tend to use "ils" only when men are
in majority or there is equality of number. When women are in majority, I
tend to separate the men from the women.

>   There is a running dispute among Americans
>about the propriety of saying "guys" about a group of women, given that
>"guy", singular, is certainly male; some people like it, some don't.
You girls?! ;)))) (or "You dolls", as I've seen quite often the expression
"guys and dolls" in the spam I receive on my hotmail address ;))) )

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Replies