Re: Láadan and woman's speak

Marcus Smith wrote:
>
> Robert Hailman wrote:
>
> >If linguistics were studied like they are in our modern society, someone
> >would definitely figure it out. They'd notice differences in inflections
> >and such in colloquial speech as compared to the older written
> >documents, I'd suppose. It would take a while for anyone to figure it
> >out, though, you're definitely right about that.
>
> You're probably right about that.
>
> >I have a little trouble with the whole "gradually" concept, a line has
> >to exist somewhere between gender and no gender, although the gender
> >system would grow and diversify after this.
>
> I'm not so sure about that.  I've occassionally been struck with the
> classificatory systems of Native American languages in their similarity to
> gender (or at least the systems found in Bantu languages, whether you want to
> call them gender or not).  Chickasaw, for example, has special words for
> existance and possession (same words for both) depending on the class of the
> noun: objects with closed tops and open bottoms (like a table or dog) take one
> set, objects with close bottoms and open tops (like a cup or purse) take
> another, everything else takes another.  I suppose one could call that gender,
> but I don't think I would.  I could imagine that this system proliferates and
> becomes full fledged gender as in European languages.
It's not yet gender, though, as you say yourself. Maybe the development
has stopped right before developing into a full-fldeged gender system,
maybe it will go on to become one. I'm just saying that it would be
possible to draw a line saying that one way of doing something is not
quite gender, and with some development it is. Not all would agree where
that like would be placed, though.

>
> >I get it now, I wasn't sure how gender came to be. I'm curious, though,
> >as to what would cause this classifier system to exist in a language
> >that doesn't have it.
>
> English is the perfect example of this.  We don't say "papers" (with the
> relevant meaning), we say "sheets of paper".  We don't say "hays", we say
> "bundles of hay".  Words that can't be pluralized need some kind of countable
> noun.  The system is also expandable: I don't think I've ever heard someone
> say
> "sheets of poster board" but I am completely willing to accept such a phrase.
> In the distant future, these could become obligatory for all nouns.  They
> would
> then become stock phrases ("sheets of paper" already is, I think).  The "of"
> would be unnecessary so our decendents would just say "sheets paper" and
> "bundles hay".  The noun drops out of the normal usage, and people forget what
> they are supposed to mean.  (How often do you use the word "bushel" as in "a
> bushel of wheat"?)  People would have to guess at which word goes with which
> noun because the direct semantic association has been lost, and they simplify
> the number of possible classificatory words to make the system easier.  Thus,
> English of the 30th century is like Chinese.
Possibly, but that just as easily could not happen.
>
> >Not neccesarily, the new genders could come in, and then the old ones
> >dissapeared because they were irrelevant. I'd find it more believeable
> >that a system slowly changed to the technological-distinction system,
> >rather than a language losing a system and then shortly after gained
> >another one. I'm always open to being wrong, though.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by irrelevant.  I don't see why gender in German
> and
> Spanish is so "relevant".  They don't need it for any special reason that
> English lacks.  The system is just there, so the speakers have to abide by
> it.
> Tense is much more relevant to the real world or discourse, but there are
> languages that lack any tense distinctions.
>
I'm saying that if a language that has a simple male/female gender
system develops natural/synthetic and electric/nonelectric systems and
such, and these new systems grow and diversify, eventually the
male/female system would no longer have any meaning and would be long.
I'm not saying that in German and Spanish gender is more relevant than
it would be in English, but the current systems could become irrelevant
as another one comes to take it's place in the distant future.

--
Robert