Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:

>Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>*Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>yearbook.

A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.

Op 23/06/2021 om 6:30 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:
>
>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>> yearbook.
> A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
> older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.

It's new in that a few decades ago there was no sign of it ("in my time"
we were taught grammar, unlike nowadays, and I and many others would
have noticed any "verharing"). The m.Dutch plural "haer" is not a source
of the recent singular verharing.

But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).

--

guido wugi

wugi <brol@wugi.be> wrote:
> Op 23/06/2021 om 6:30 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:
>>
>>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>>> yearbook.
>> A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
>> older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.
>
>
> It's new in that a few decades ago there was no sign of it ("in my time"
> we were taught grammar, unlike nowadays, and I and many others would
> have noticed any "verharing"). The m.Dutch plural "haer" is not a source
> of the recent singular verharing.
>
> But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
> between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
> sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).
>

English had the same issue so it borrowed 'they' from norse, or something
to that effect.

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:04:46 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:

>Op 23/06/2021 om 6:30 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <brol@wugi.be> scribeva:
>>
>>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>>> yearbook.
>> A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
>> older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.
>
>
>It's new in that a few decades ago there was no sign of it ("in my time"
>we were taught grammar, unlike nowadays, and I and many others would
>have noticed any "verharing"). The m.Dutch plural "haer" is not a source
>of the recent singular verharing.

Wel:
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haar-ziekte_(taal)>
<https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haar-ziekte_(taal)#cite_note-verwijs-3>

>But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
>between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
>sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:

> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
> a few examples concerning my language.
>
> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
> genderedness.
> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
> world.

Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
la mer?

> Dutch gender is derailing completely anyway: after pronoun gender
> sensitivity has disappeared earlier it is by now mutating.
> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
> yearbook.
> Many de-woords are nowadays referred to with the *neuter* pronoun "het",
> the English way (!), what I call the 'verhetting':
> *De regering* zegt dat *het* morgen hierover zal communiceren; the
> government says "it" will communicate to-morrow about this.
> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).

Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
or animate/inanimate gender?

In English we say Sprachgefuehl.

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 7:11:32 PM UTC-4, António Marques wrote:
> wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:

> > Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
> > a few examples concerning my language.
> > Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
> > genderedness.
> > For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
> > 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
> > and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
> > masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
> > "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
> > ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
> > then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
> > Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
> > and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
> > that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
> > world.
>
> Doesn't it rather point to the opposite? How do the flamingos and the
> netherpeople engage the world differently, as they should be doing if it
> were true?

Hmm, we _are_ still in the Whorf thread.

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <br...@wugi.be> scribeva:

> >Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
> >pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
> >*Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
> >yearbook.
>
> A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
> older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.

Not a "corruption" at all. Language changes. GEt over it.

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:42:18 +0200: wugi <br...@wugi.be> scribeva:
>
>> >Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>> >pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>> >*Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>> >yearbook.
>>
>> A phenomenon that was already seen in 16-something, and was based on
>> older collective plurals. Not a new corruption of the language.
>
>Not a "corruption" at all. Language changes. GEt over it.

Harrassment of grammatical rules is a corruption of the language. To
me. If it beclives, no longer to new generation.

Language change is of all times, the resistance against it is too.
(What a lousy translation. I mean:
Taalverandering is van alle tijden, het verzet ertegen evenzeer.
GT makes there also nothing of.
Equally well?)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:47:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>
>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>> a few examples concerning my language.
>>
>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>> genderedness.
>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>> world.
>
>Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>la mer?

Perhaps, yes. Hardly anyone in the Netherlands still knows Dutch, in
Belgium it is an important second language.

>> Dutch gender is derailing completely anyway: after pronoun gender
>> sensitivity has disappeared earlier it is by now mutating.
>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>> yearbook.
>> Many de-woords are nowadays referred to with the *neuter* pronoun "het",
>> the English way (!), what I call the 'verhetting':
>> *De regering* zegt dat *het* morgen hierover zal communiceren; the
>> government says "it" will communicate to-morrow about this.
>> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
>
>Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
>or animate/inanimate gender?

Yes. In above-rivers Dutch masculine/feminine is ONLY for people, no
longer for things. (Animals are a grey area.)

>In English we say Sprachgefuehl.

In German they say Lenkwitsch Instinkt?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Op 23/06/2021 om 14:47 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>
>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>> a few examples concerning my language.
>>
>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>> genderedness.
>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>> world.
> Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
> la mer?

Not at all. Conservativism through dialectal vivacity (better word?).

>> Dutch gender is derailing completely anyway: after pronoun gender
>> sensitivity has disappeared earlier it is by now mutating.
>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>> yearbook.
>> Many de-woords are nowadays referred to with the *neuter* pronoun "het",
>> the English way (!), what I call the 'verhetting':
>> *De regering* zegt dat *het* morgen hierover zal communiceren; the
>> government says "it" will communicate to-morrow about this.
>> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
> Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
> or animate/inanimate gender?

Yeah,  back to word classes. Yet fraught with the de-/het-woorden split,
with different behaviour for similar meanings.

> In English we say Sprachgefuehl.

Ah, PSG, then.

--

guido wugi

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:50:07 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:47:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
><grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>>On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>>
>>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>>> a few examples concerning my language.
>>>
>>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>>> genderedness.
>>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>>> world.
>>
>>Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>>la mer?
>
>Perhaps, yes. Hardly anyone in the Netherlands still knows Dutch,

You mean French.

>in
>Belgium it is an important second language.
>
>>> Dutch gender is derailing completely anyway: after pronoun gender
>>> sensitivity has disappeared earlier it is by now mutating.
>>> Many *neuter* het-words are nowadays being referred to with *feminine*
>>> pronouns, the 'verharing' (using haar/zij):
>>> *Het comité* publiceerde *haar* jaarboek; the committee published 'her'
>>> yearbook.
>>> Many de-woords are nowadays referred to with the *neuter* pronoun "het",
>>> the English way (!), what I call the 'verhetting':
>>> *De regering* zegt dat *het* morgen hierover zal communiceren; the
>>> government says "it" will communicate to-morrow about this.
>>> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>>> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
>>
>>Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
>>or animate/inanimate gender?
>
>Yes. In above-rivers Dutch masculine/feminine is ONLY for people, no
>longer for things. (Animals are a grey area.)
>
>>In English we say Sprachgefuehl.
>
>In German they say Lenkwitsch Instinkt?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 17:01:03 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:50:07 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
> >Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:47:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> ><gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
> >>> a few examples concerning my language.
> >>>
> >>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
> >>> genderedness.
> >>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
> >>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
> >>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
> >>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
> >>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
> >>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
> >>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
> >>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
> >>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
> >>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
> >>> world.
> >>
> >>Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
> >>la mer?
> >
> >Perhaps, yes. Hardly anyone in the Netherlands still knows Dutch,
> You mean French.

ya, ik kan nuur nederlands !

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 23/06/2021 om 14:47 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> >
> >> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
> >> a few examples concerning my language.
> >>
> >> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
> >> genderedness.
> >> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
> >> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
> >> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
> >> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
> >> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
> >> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
> >> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
> >> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
> >> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
> >> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
> >> world.
> > Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
> > la mer?
> Not at all. Conservativism through dialectal vivacity (better word?).

Whether4 they like to admit it or not, north-Belgians are constantly
exposed to French and have at least passive familiarity with the
language. (Do they get it in elementary school?)

Is it just coincidence that all your examples are words that are feminine
in French?

> >> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
> >> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
> > Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
> > or animate/inanimate gender?
>
> Yeah, back to word classes. Yet fraught with the de-/het-woorden split,
> with different behaviour for similar meanings.
>
> > In English we say Sprachgefuehl.
>
> Ah, PSG, then.

Is there a _taal_ word in English? Did we lose it, or did
you pick it up somewhere?

Op 23/06/2021 om 19:40 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
> On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>> Op 23/06/2021 om 14:47 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>>>> a few examples concerning my language.
>>>>
>>>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>>>> genderedness.
>>>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>>>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>>>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>>>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>>>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>>>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>>>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>>>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>>>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>>>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>>>> world.
>>> Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>>> la mer?
>> Not at all. Conservativism through dialectal vivacity (better word?).
>
> Whether4 they like to admit it or not, north-Belgians are constantly
> exposed to French and have at least passive familiarity with the
> language. (Do they get it in elementary school?)

It has nothing to do with our inherited genders. You'd better compare
with German (and yes, there's gender differences also, besides different
words altogether).
De stoel m., der Stuhl; de kamer f., die Kammer (but das Zimmer); de zon
f., die Sonne; de weg m., der Weg; ...
Het ogenblik, die Augenblick; de maand f., der Monat; de maan f., der
Mond; ...

> Is it just coincidence that all your examples are words that are feminine
> in French?

De zon f., le soleil; de maand f., le mois; de wolk f., le nuage; de
stoel m., la chaise; de weg m., la voie, la route; de regering f., le
gouvernement.
Want more?
>>>> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>>>> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
>>> Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
>>> or animate/inanimate gender?
>>
>> Yeah, back to word classes. Yet fraught with the de-/het-woorden split,
>> with different behaviour for similar meanings.
>>
>>> In English we say Sprachgefuehl.
>>
>> Ah, PSG, then.
>
> Is there a _taal_ word in English? Did we lose it, or did
> you pick it up somewhere?
>

That's a different tale?

--
guido wugi

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 08:18:48 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 17:01:03 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>> Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:50:07 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
>> scribeva:
>> >Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:47:49 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> ><gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >
>> >>On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>> >>> a few examples concerning my language.
>> >>>
>> >>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>> >>> genderedness.
>> >>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>> >>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>> >>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>> >>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>> >>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>> >>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>> >>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>> >>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>> >>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>> >>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>> >>> world.
>> >>
>> >>Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>> >>la mer?
>> >
>> >Perhaps, yes. Hardly anyone in the Netherlands still knows Dutch,
>> You mean French.
>
>ya, ik kan nuur nederlands !

Du auch, jaaa!
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>> Op 23/06/2021 om 14:47 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>> >> a few examples concerning my language.
>> >>
>> >> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>> >> genderedness.
>> >> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>> >> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>> >> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>> >> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>> >> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>> >> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>> >> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>> >> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>> >> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>> >> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>> >> world.
>> > Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>> > la mer?
>> Not at all. Conservativism through dialectal vivacity (better word?).
>
>Whether4 they like to admit it or not, north-Belgians are constantly
>exposed to French and have at least passive familiarity with the
>language. (Do they get it in elementary school?)

Yes and yes.

>Is it just coincidence that all your examples are words that are feminine
>in French?

Yes. Lots of counterexamples exist. German has more genders than
French, as had Old English, don't you remember?

>> >> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>> >> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
>> > Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
>> > or animate/inanimate gender?
>>
>> Yeah, back to word classes. Yet fraught with the de-/het-woorden split,
>> with different behaviour for similar meanings.
>>
>> > In English we say Sprachgefuehl.
>>
>> Ah, PSG, then.
>
>Is there a _taal_ word in English? Did we lose it, or did
>you pick it up somewhere?

Tell the tale ... and tally. Count your blessings. Vertel het verhaal.
Conta le historia. Tel alles op, add it all up.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 20:54:53 +0200: wugi <wugi@scrlt.com> scribeva:

>Op 23/06/2021 om 19:40 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>> On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>>> Op 23/06/2021 om 14:47 schreef Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:42:34 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now for the influence of grammatical gender on one's view of the world,
>>>>> a few examples concerning my language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take the NL-Dutch genderlessness of de-words vs. the BE-Flemish
>>>>> genderedness.
>>>>> For me, tables and rooms and seas and provinces are
>>>>> 'naturally'/grammatically feminine, whereas chairs and floors and oceans
>>>>> and states are masculine. For a Dutchman, all are 'common gender' ~
>>>>> masculine. So, if a Dutch person says or writes
>>>>> "Can we move the table°? I want him° in the other room. Is that room°°
>>>>> ready? Yes, he°° is ready.",
>>>>> then it rubs against my linguistic fur, but we are used to it. If a
>>>>> Fleming uses the 'proper' feminine pronouns most Dutch won't accept it,
>>>>> and it has to be cleaned up in the printer's copy. Now don't tell me
>>>>> that this doesn't point to some different way of, well, looking at the
>>>>> world.
>>>> Or, "conservative pressure" from French? La table ,la chambre/salle,
>>>> la mer?
>>> Not at all. Conservativism through dialectal vivacity (better word?).
>>
>> Whether4 they like to admit it or not, north-Belgians are constantly
>> exposed to French and have at least passive familiarity with the
>> language. (Do they get it in elementary school?)
>
>It has nothing to do with our inherited genders. You'd better compare
>with German (and yes, there's gender differences also, besides different
>words altogether).
>De stoel m., der Stuhl; de kamer f., die Kammer (but das Zimmer); de zon
>f., die Sonne; de weg m., der Weg; ...
>Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;

Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick

>de maand f., der Monat; de maan f., der Mond; ...
>
>> Is it just coincidence that all your examples are words that are feminine
>> in French?
>
>De zon f., le soleil; de maand f., le mois; de wolk f., le nuage; de
>stoel m., la chaise; de weg m., la voie, la route; de regering f., le
>gouvernement.
>Want more?
>>>>> Dunno where it will end, but some regendering it's going to be. But for
>>>>> now all this hurts my PTG (personal language feel).
>>>> Sounds like it might be morphing from sex-gender to human/non-human
>>>> or animate/inanimate gender?
>>>
>>> Yeah, back to word classes. Yet fraught with the de-/het-woorden split,
>>> with different behaviour for similar meanings.
>>>
>>>> In English we say Sprachgefuehl.
>>>
>>> Ah, PSG, then.
>>
>> Is there a _taal_ word in English? Did we lose it, or did
>> you pick it up somewhere?
>>
>
>That's a different tale?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Op 23/06/2021 om 22:35 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
Guido:
>> Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;

> Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
> https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick

Yes, Dutch with the odd neuter* (comp. de blik - the look, vs. het blik
- the can).

* undoubtedly from French.

--
guido wugi

On 2021-06-23, António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt> wrote:

>> But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
>> between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
>> sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).
>
> English had the same issue so it borrowed 'they' from norse, or something
> to that effect.

Norse in turn must have run into the problem earlier and repurposed
the demonstrative; the similarity between "they" and "that" is no
coincidence.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 2021-06-23, wugi <brol@wugi.be> wrote:

> But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
> between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
> sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).

In Old High German, the plural pronouns were still distinguished by
gender, and these forms were in turn more or less different from the
feminine singular.
https://archive.org/details/oldhighgermanpri00wrigiala/page/64/mode/2up

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Op 29/06/2021 om 17:54 schreef Christian Weisgerber:
> On 2021-06-23, wugi <brol@wugi.be> wrote:
>
>> But I would be interested in learning about the possible relation
>> between fem. zij/haar and the plural zij/(m.D.)haer. Compare German
>> sie/ihr(f.) vs. sie/ihr(pl.).
> In Old High German, the plural pronouns were still distinguished by
> gender, and these forms were in turn more or less different from the
> feminine singular.
> https://archive.org/details/oldhighgermanpri00wrigiala/page/64/mode/2up

Thank you. Also
https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zij1 and
https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/haar1.

Rather confused and confusing and at times contradictory sources, but
ultimately both pl. and f.s. "sie" and "ihr" forms descended from
similar PIE demonstrative forms.

--

guido wugi

On 2021-06-29, wugi <brol@wugi.be> wrote:

> https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zij1 and
> https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/haar1.
>
> Rather confused and confusing and at times contradictory sources, but
> ultimately both pl. and f.s. "sie" and "ihr" forms descended from
> similar PIE demonstrative forms.

There was a PIE demonstrative with a nom. sg. masc/fem. in *s- and
all other forms in *t- > Germanic þ-.

See the Old English reflex sē:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Declension_10

This PIE demonstrative is the obvious origin of the German "sie"
personal pronouns, as well as the "der/die/das" article/demonstratives,
but it needs some explaining how the s- spread to the plural forms
and the d- to the masc/fem singular in the respective paradigms.

The "ihr" forms are from a different demonstrative.

Meanwhile the masc/neut sing. genitive/possessive "sein-" forms are
clearly derived from the PIE reflexive pronoun.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 5:30:06 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2021-06-29, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:
>
> > https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zij1 and
> > https://etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/haar1.
> >
> > Rather confused and confusing and at times contradictory sources, but
> > ultimately both pl. and f.s. "sie" and "ihr" forms descended from
> > similar PIE demonstrative forms.
> There was a PIE demonstrative with a nom. sg. masc/fem. in *s- and
> all other forms in *t- > Germanic þ-.
>
> See the Old English reflex sē:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/se#Declension_10

Malay Edit
Article Edit
si

the (primarily used with people, rarely necessary)
Ke mana perginya si budak nakal yang aku jumpa di taman tadi?
Where has the brat I just met in the park headed to?
definite particle used with adjectives to describe people
si mati
the dead (person)
a definite article used in names or nicknames

Se- a, one, *xyua.m sum@Egl, semua@Mly: all; part of that string I showed earlier including ce-@Azt: one and on.ze@Spn: 11.

> This PIE demonstrative is the obvious origin of the German "sie"
> personal pronouns, as well as the "der/die/das" article/demonstratives,
> but it needs some explaining how the s- spread to the plural forms
> and the d- to the masc/fem singular in the respective paradigms.
>
> The "ihr" forms are from a different demonstrative.
>
> Meanwhile the masc/neut sing. genitive/possessive "sein-" forms are
> clearly derived from the PIE reflexive pronoun.
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 23:17:16 UTC+2, wugi a écrit :
> Op 23/06/2021 om 22:35 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Guido:
> >> Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;
>
> > Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
> > https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick
> Yes, Dutch with the odd neuter* (comp. de blik - the look, vs. het blik
> - the can).
>
> * undoubtedly from French.

What is undoubtedly from French ?

Mon, 19 Jul 2021 23:27:02 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet.arnaud@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:

>Le mercredi 23 juin 2021 à 23:17:16 UTC+2, wugi a écrit :
>> Op 23/06/2021 om 22:35 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
>> Guido:
>> >> Het ogenblik, die Augenblick;
>>
>> > Der Augenblick, sagt mir die Duden.
>> > https://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Augenblick
>> Yes, Dutch with the odd neuter* (comp. de blik - the look, vs. het blik
>> - the can).
>>
>> * undoubtedly from French.
>
>What is undoubtedly from French ?

I don't know. I find this reference:
https://gtb.ivdnt.org/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M047542
It says:
"Eigenlijk: een blik; thans alleen in den vorm oogblik, voorheen ook
oogenblik. Alleen manl."

This is unknown to me.

"–2. Overdrachtelijk. In Noord-Nederland nog slechts in hoogeren
stijl manlijk, in het dagelijksch leven onz., waarschijnlijk door
invloed van tijdstip, uur en sommige andere woorden. In België is het
woord altijd manlijk."

Always neuter to me, never masculin. (But 'blik' per se IS masculine.)
That about the "hoogere stijl" (= higher register), in which the word
would be masculine, is unknown to me. But note that this dictionary
entry was written in 1893.

Is it stil always masculine in Belgium, Wugi?

Unfortunately, the dictionary describes the gender change, but has no
theorie about why it occurred.