keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris M. Keesan) (01/24/85)
---------------------------- From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) Subject: Re: Gender-specific responses to s/he > Something similar happened in French. In a few cases, the older nominative > and accusative cases of the same noun in Old French gave rise to two > separate nouns of Modern French. The nominative form of the word for > 'man' gave rise to the Modern French word for 'one' (generic person): > > case Latin -> Old French -> Mod French Mod French meaning > > nom. homo -> om -> on one (the generic person) > acc. hominem -> homme -> homme man >-- Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for "male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is "vir". -- Morris M. Keesan {decvax,linus,ihnp4,wivax,wjh12,ima}!bbncca!keesan keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPA
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (01/26/85)
> > Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for > "male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, > since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is > "vir". I suspect you are right as far as Classical Latin is concerned. I appreciate the information. There is good reason to believe that "homo" came to mean "male human" after the Classical period and before Latin diverged into the separate Romance languages since the modern Romance languages' each have their word for "male human" derived from "homo". In none of the modern Romance languages that I know did "vir" take a hold. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (01/28/85)
> Subject: Re: Gender-specific responses to s/he > Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for > "male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, > since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is > "vir". > Morris M. Keesan Harrumph, harrumph. Then I'd expect that 'homo' would be of neuter gender, which Latin provides, but it's male. The "default sex" in Latin is male, just as in every language I ever heard of. (If there are exceptions, does this coincide with a less male-supremacist culture?) But apparently contracts written in archaic French refer to "personnes", which is of course feminine in French. And then to keep the gender straight, so to speak, the contract refers to these persons as "elles" [they, female] later on. How would modern French handle this? --John Purbrick
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/30/85)
> > > > Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for > > "male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, > > since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is > > "vir". > > There is good reason to believe that "homo" came to mean "male human" > after the Classical period and before Latin diverged into the separate > Romance languages since the modern Romance languages' each have their > word for "male human" derived from "homo". In none of the modern Romance > languages that I know did "vir" take a hold. > -- > Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California "Homo" is also the Greek root meaning "same", which leads to things like "homogeneous". This means that saying "lesbians are female homosexuals" is perfectly valid. As for "vir", there is "virile" (French and English), "virtue" (Sexist, I know)..... Marcel Simon
mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (01/30/85)
>> Something similar happened in French. In a few cases, the older nominative >> and accusative cases of the same noun in Old French gave rise to two >> separate nouns of Modern French. The nominative form of the word for >> 'man' gave rise to the Modern French word for 'one' (generic person): >> >> case Latin -> Old French -> Mod French Mod French meaning >> >> nom. homo -> om -> on one (the generic person) >>-- > >Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for >"male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, >since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is >"vir". > Morris M. Keesan Hmmm, did you know that "many" is the Old English for the plural of "man"?
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/31/85)
> > Hmmm, did you know that "many" is the Old English for the plural of "man"? No it isn't. The Old English plural of "man" was "menn", just the same as it is today - it is a reflex of the Indo-European root "man-" which means "A man". In most languages its reflex means "a person". The word "many" was the word "manig" is Old English. It is a reflex of the Proto Indo-European word "menegh-", which meant "copious." Source: American Heritage Dictionary -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (02/01/85)
> Harrumph, harrumph. Then I'd expect that 'homo' would be of neuter gender, > which Latin provides, but it's male. The "default sex" in Latin is male, just Gender in Latin is a grammatical category, not a sex. Examples are the two feminine nouns `agricola' and `nauta' - farmer and sailor; these nouns almost invariably described MEN. > But apparently contracts written in archaic French refer to "personnes", > which is of course feminine in French. And then to keep the gender straight, > so to speak, the contract refers to these persons as "elles" [they, female] > later on. How would modern French handle this? Same way; `la personne' ==> use `elle' as pronoun. Note, for instance, that in French we have `le car' and `la voiture', both meaning `automobile'. So in a sentence using `car', you'd say `il', but if you said `voiture' you'd say `elle'. Gender is much less biological in French than in English. It is not, in general, safe to use categories, feelings, and connotations belonging to one {language + culture} to reason about another. Better to get into the genius of the second one and then think about it. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Support Bulgarian gajda players.
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (02/01/85)
> Hmmm, did you know that "many" is the Old English for the plural of "man"?
No. And neither does the etymology section of my dictionary.
BTW, The original posting - about the source of `homme' and `on' in French,
both from Latin `homo' (stem homin-), is correct.
--
Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
Support Bulgarian gajda players.msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/01/85)
Gino Bloch (voder!gino) writes: > Gender in Latin is a grammatical category, not a sex. True regarding objects, at least. > Examples are the > two feminine nouns `agricola' and `nauta' - farmer and sailor; these > nouns almost invariably described MEN. False. Agricola and nauta are masculine despite being 1st declension. My recollection of Latin is that most words that could refer to men or women had two different forms--`servus' for a male slave, `serva' for a female. This means that the original point, that `homo' is masculine, IS interesting. Can someone confirm or deny this authoritatively*? I'm only almost sure. (*Give references.) Mark Brader
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/01/85)
> But apparently contracts written in archaic French refer to "personnes", > which is of course feminine in French. And then to keep the gender straight, > so to speak, the contract refers to these persons as "elles" [they, female] > later on. How would modern French handle this? > --John Purbrick The same way, i.e. "personnes", "elles". Marcel
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (02/04/85)
> > Harrumph, harrumph. Then I'd expect that 'homo' would be of neuter gender, > > which Latin provides, but it's male. The "default sex" in Latin is male. > Gender in Latin is a grammatical category, not a sex. Examples are the > two feminine nouns `agricola' and `nauta' - farmer and sailor; these > nouns almost invariably described MEN. 'Nauta', 'agricola' and 'poeta' are all masculine. Their feminine form is just a grammmatical irregularity. Thus 'Poeta vetus'--The old poet. Replyers to my original posting don't seem to know any more about 'homo' than I did. In fact it is of "common" gender, that is, it is masculine or feminine depending on who is being described. But as I didn't quite say, masculine is the "default gender". How about 'Homines veti vetaeque'?--The old folks (of both sexes)? As for 'personne' in French, native French speakers assure me as everyone else has, that if you introduce your characters as 'personnes', they stay female.
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (02/05/85)
> >> .... The nominative form of the word for > >> 'man' gave rise to the Modern French word for 'one' (generic person): > >> > >> case Latin -> Old French -> Mod French Mod French meaning > >> > >> nom. homo -> om -> on one (the generic person) > >>-- > > > >Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for > >"male human". English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction, > >since our word "man" means both. The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is > >"vir". > > Morris M. Keesan > Hmmm, did you know that "many" is the Old English for the plural of "man"? Who's pulling your leg? :-) According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "many" (which was"maenig" in Old English) comes from the Proto-IndoEuropean root *menegh-, which means "copious", while "man" comes from the Proto-IndoEuropean root *man-/*mon-, meaning "man". -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob