In these times of heightened security, transportation hubs have had to come up with recordings to remind us of the ever-present danger in either watching another traveler’s bag, or having another traveler watch our bag while we go get in line for a latte or chase after a child. Such warnings are, I suppose, understandable, even if the danger feels remote at the time. The problem is that the language chosen to convey these loud, perfectly articulated, and oft-repeated admonitions reaches for such official sounding intonations that they end up mangled, and worse – ungrammatical!
For instance, I’ve just come back from a quick trip to Minnesota. Not surprisingly, my plane was delayed and, while in the waiting lounge of Hubert H. Humphrey Airport with about 200 fellow passengers, I was treated every few minutes to an overhead recording urging everyone to “patrol” their baggage: “All passengers should patrol their baggage at all times.” Can you imagine a waiting lounge with passengers “patrolling” their unmoving carry-on items, taking perhaps four or five steps forward past one’s briefcase or diaper bag, then four or five steps back? Talk about chaos!
My question is, if no one is laughing, or even making quizzical looks at each other on hearing such nonsense, is anyone really listening?
In Grand Central Station in New York, a similar recording is played equally often, and I always cringe at the word “attended:” “Atttention passengers: All luggage and packages must be attended at all times.” Personally, I thought people attended church or the opera. Dictionary.com agrees and adds that a nurse may attend (administer care to) a patient, and a fever may attend (or accompany) a cold. In each of those cases, “attend” is a transitive verb, which means it must take a grammatical object (church/opera; patient; cold are such objects in the sentences above). So that even if one can, say, “attend one’s health” (though I have never heard the word used that way -- somehow, “Put down that Big Mac and attend your health!” just doesn’t sound right) grammatically, it’s correct, with “health” being the object of “attend.”
Not so with “luggage and packages must be attended at all times.” In this case, luggage and packages are the joint subjects with no available object. That is why my ear is always straining to hear the little word particle, TO, following “attend.” It would be so nice to hear, “All luggage and packages must be ‘attended TO’ (to take care, give attention) at all times.” But, alas. It’s like listening for the final note in Beethoven’s 5th – Da-Da-Da (“Excuse me, sir, we need another “Da!”) and not getting it.
On my New York/Minneapolis flights (both to and from), more loud recordings, these recited in a deep, male voice following the slightest turbulence and upon descent, always jolted me from my half-sleep: “In compliance with federal regulations, please return to your seats.” The problem here is that “in compliance with federal regulations” is a phrase with nothing to link to – a lonely, dangling prepositional phrase; the subject of this particular awkward sentence is an unspoken, but understood, “you,” (“you” being the one asked to sit down). But where does “in compliance with” go? Does it describe the subject, “you” or the verb, “return”? Neither, really.
What the deep-voiced intoner means, I think, is, “TO COMPLY WITH federal regulations, please return to your seats.” But is anyone really listening? Or, (now I’m thinking of that Chicago song: “Does anyone know what time it is? Does anyone really care?”) Or are we just tolerating this mumbo-jumbo because we are passive passengers just happy to be aloft?
Still, these three announcements are perfect illustrations of why it’s important to say important things in plain, old English. If you want your message understood by people, then keep messages simple and avoid Latin-based words of more than two syllables. Why not have people write official-sounding warnings in plain English, with words and phrases that actually mean something, and with few or no Latin-based words allowed: “Passengers, please WATCH your bags; or – for variety’s sake – “Please HOLD ONTO your bags.” For in-flight requests, a nice, deep voice might advise, “Please get back to your seats – for your own safety.”
As my plane back to JFK stood at the gate before departure, I eased my seat back just a smidgen, for extra comfort. Within seconds, a sharp-eyed flight attendant had spotted my infraction and asked me to place it back in its full, upright position. Later, as I pondered the prerecorded announcement about compliance, I wondered if I, as Language Lady, were simply the verbal equivalent of that annoying flight attendant, ever aware of the slightest flaw. (Please – don’t feel you must comment! It was just a passing thought.)
In any case, in New York, we are exhorted on subway signs and commuter rail posters to speak up when we see something strange, with the public service campaign, “If you see something, say something;” and, in Spanish, “Si ves algo, di algo.” Perhaps we could do with a parallel public service campaign for catching strange uses of the English language while trying to warn people about strange somethings; this campaign could be called, “If you hear something, say something.”
In other words, we must band together and speak out against dangling prepositional phrases, the lack of objects with transitive verbs, and jarringly wrong words trying to sound more fearsome than the more natural choice. Watching our language , while making sure that it is concise – and above all, clear – could ultimately contribute more to our national safety than, say, 200 glassy-eyed passengers not patrolling their packages in compliance with federal regulations ever could. Do you hear me?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Presiders and Deciders
With President’s Day just around the corner; and with more presidential candidates popping up daily – not to mention the media’s reminding us almost as often that the United States is now starting on the longest presidential campaign in our history, it seemed time to talk about things presidential. First off the list – and what could be more presidential? – is the word “president.”
I’ve often wondered how George Washington (one of this month’s two famous presidential birthday boys), came to adopt this term. Up until 1787 no ruling authority in any land had ever been called anything but some form of “king” (from the Old English, “cyning” (pron: kooning), which came from the ancient root, “gen,” for “family” or “kin”); or “queen” (derived from the Indo-European root, “gwen,” for “woman” – though in Old English, the word, “cwene,” pronounced “queen,” also meant both “wife” AND “prostitute.” Hmmm.) But our country’s founders felt that all monarchs were “inherently evil,” according to Jospeh Ellis in his “Founding Fathers.” In fact, the American Revolution had been fought to RID our country of such monarchs, so a new word for the position was absolutely imperative. “Republican king,” the original term, according to Ellis, was not it.
“President” according to Dictionary.com, goes back to the 14th century, when it meant “governor;” some scholar back then must have combined the Latin words, “prae” (in front of) with “sidere” (to sit) to define the job: “to act as head or chief.” In essence, a president is supposed to “preside,” or supervise, be in charge of, or officiate. (There were many more synonyms listed in Roget’s New Millennium thesaurus, but I did not see “wiretap without permission” anywhere on the list.)
Up until President Washington took on the title,, there had been college presidents as far back as 1464, and presidents of individual colonies starting in Pocahontas’s Virginia in 1608. But 1787 marks the first use of “president” meaning Chief Executive Officer of a republic.
Notice the verbal distinction between an authority figure meant to “preside” rather than “rule.” In preside, there’s an element of reasoned control rather than the often whimsical and selfish motives so often the legacy of kings.
Cut to 218 years later, however, and we have President Bush referring to himself as “The Decider,” a term he uttered at a press conference in April 2006, when he declared that as The Decider he would keep Donald Rumsfeld on as Secretary of Defense. “The Decider” still sounds funny, or stupid, or both. To me, it sounds childish – a three-year-old just learning how to speak might see that his mom cooks, so she’s the cooker; or that his dad shaves, so he’s the shaver. George Bush thinks, I decide – so I’m the Decider. In fact, most adults would have gone with the more standard “Decision Maker.” Better yet, how about The Presider – one who could emanate a quiet but confidant authority – something like a leader.
But now that the longest presidential campaign in history has begun, let’s take a Language Lady-look at what’s going on with two of the most talked-about candidates:
Rhymes with Iraq
At my fingertips as a I write is a February 9, 2007 copy of the German-language, Swiss newspaper supplement, Das Magazin, and I thought I’d share some of the terms the cover story uses to describe the newly announced presidential Democratic candidate from Illinois: The subtitle of the article says that this candidate is “jung” (pronounce “j” as “y” and it sounds just like our same word, “young”), schwartz (black) and perhaps the “nachste” (pronounced “next-eh”) Mann im Weissen Haus (man in the White House). Barack Obama, the magazine says, is “der Superstar” of “amerikanischen Politik” (American politics) and “bringt” (brings) “Schwitzen” (sweat) to, or rather, is making female Presidental candidate Hillary Clinton break out in a sweat.
Das Magazin reporter Peter Haffner then starts the main text by saying that the candidate’s first name rhymes with Iraq; that his middle name recalls that of a recently hanged dictator; and that his last name sounds similar to the most sought-after terrorist in the world; and that all together, Barack Hussein Obama is the phonetic embodiment of the American nightmare. And yet, the article adds, this man has a good chance of being President Bush’s successor.
Not only successor: The title of the article is “Der Erloser,” or The Savoir.” Yes, as in Jesus. I wondered, given how closely German and English are related, just how “Erloser,” with LOSER so central and prominent, could mean something so opposite. The German word, “losen,” with an umlaut over the “o” making it sound more like “loozen,” means to “untie,” or “loosen,” or basically, to come undone. But stick the prefix “er” on it and it makes it the opposite: to bring together, unite – or, in a bigger context, to redeem and save.
Now, In addition to calling himself The Decider, our current president --the most polarizing president in recent history – also claimed he was “a uniter” (In a May 1999 interview Bush said: “I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.”) Well, I suppose we should be grateful that he hasn’t claimed to be anything more grandiose. Whether Barack – who openly refers to God and his personal faith in the Almighty – ever calls himself “The Savior” remains to be seen.
Rhymes with Pillory
Then there is Hillary. Last fall, prior to the November elections, our senator’s “Re-elect Hillary” posters and bumper stickers deliberately left off her maiden and married last name. With the single name, “Hillary,” she joined the ranks of such last-name-less celebs as Cher, Madonna, and (at least for now) Britney, Paris, and Lindsay; that way, we could almost forget that the former Hillary Rodham was married to the scandal-tainted, former President Bill Clinton. Hillary, it seems, wanted to be re-elected as Herself.
But now that Hillary has declared herself an official Democratic presidential candidate, the little words “Rodham” and/or “Clinton” are creeping onto her campaign posters and other paraphernalia. “Hillary” still dominates but perhaps she now wants the possible booster-connection to her hubby, who these days is widely seen as a post-Katrina humanitarian, a man of the people, and a down-home boy, whose intern-related disgrace nine years ago seems, after six years of Bush-patrol, pretty innocuous.
But whatever Hillary does, it seems she does the wrong thing. Her decisions seem so connected to polls or the majority opinion that, when those opinions change, she changes her stance faster than a driver trying to avoid a dog in the road. If she leaves Bill’s name off her posters one time, the next thing you know, she puts him on. If she puts on a strong, assertive front to win the senate seat, the next thing you know she’s being told she’s too masculine in her efforts, that she should take advantage of her femininity. Next thing you know, she’s in Iowa meeting with women in someone’s living room. If she’s told she’s too cold and ambitious, then she attempts warm and fuzzy; but when her official HillaryClinton.com website came out a few weeks ago, reviewers derided her as fake and a poor actor.
Maybe Hillary simply wants no enemies. But it comes off as is The Vacilator. Or the Greatest Common (and Power-Amassing) Denominator.
Just last week the fashion designer Donnatella Versace chimed in, saying that Hillary should stop wearing pants,* especially in blue, and go for knee-length dresses instead. No doubt Hillary will be soon sighted looking like some Breakfast at Tiffany’s “Hillary” Golightly in a not-so-sleek black, knee-length cocktail dress.
But even if Hillary happens to wear some tasteful, fitted suit, someone will no doubt make some crack about her having fat legs or fleshy knees, and she’ll revert to *trousers:” (Donnatella actually used the word, “trousers,” which the British seem to favor over our “pants;” “trousers” comes from the Scottish Gaelic “triubhas,” the name for the tight-fitting breeches worn (sometimes) under men’s tartan kilts).
You could say that Hillary is a real sucker for words – that is, other peoples’ words. It would be great if we could have a woman president, and one we could dub The Listener – who could listen to other experts and make well-informed decisions. What we don’t need is a Chief Executive Hearer. The difference between “hearing” and “listening,” as with “seeing” and “looking,” is a question of focus and attention. And we don’t need a President who behaves like a hearing aid that picks up all the background noise and none of the foreground.
As for Das Magazin’s jibe that Barack’s candidacy is making Hillary break out in a sweat, my father would have begged to disagree: “Horses sweat; men perspire; and ladies … glow,” he liked to remind me.
But back when ladies glowed, a women and a black man were not running for president. We’ve still got about 600 days to go, so it’s a bit early for any of us to be Deciders on Winners. So I say, Hail to the Chief Presider, whoever (s)he may be!
I’ve often wondered how George Washington (one of this month’s two famous presidential birthday boys), came to adopt this term. Up until 1787 no ruling authority in any land had ever been called anything but some form of “king” (from the Old English, “cyning” (pron: kooning), which came from the ancient root, “gen,” for “family” or “kin”); or “queen” (derived from the Indo-European root, “gwen,” for “woman” – though in Old English, the word, “cwene,” pronounced “queen,” also meant both “wife” AND “prostitute.” Hmmm.) But our country’s founders felt that all monarchs were “inherently evil,” according to Jospeh Ellis in his “Founding Fathers.” In fact, the American Revolution had been fought to RID our country of such monarchs, so a new word for the position was absolutely imperative. “Republican king,” the original term, according to Ellis, was not it.
“President” according to Dictionary.com, goes back to the 14th century, when it meant “governor;” some scholar back then must have combined the Latin words, “prae” (in front of) with “sidere” (to sit) to define the job: “to act as head or chief.” In essence, a president is supposed to “preside,” or supervise, be in charge of, or officiate. (There were many more synonyms listed in Roget’s New Millennium thesaurus, but I did not see “wiretap without permission” anywhere on the list.)
Up until President Washington took on the title,, there had been college presidents as far back as 1464, and presidents of individual colonies starting in Pocahontas’s Virginia in 1608. But 1787 marks the first use of “president” meaning Chief Executive Officer of a republic.
Notice the verbal distinction between an authority figure meant to “preside” rather than “rule.” In preside, there’s an element of reasoned control rather than the often whimsical and selfish motives so often the legacy of kings.
Cut to 218 years later, however, and we have President Bush referring to himself as “The Decider,” a term he uttered at a press conference in April 2006, when he declared that as The Decider he would keep Donald Rumsfeld on as Secretary of Defense. “The Decider” still sounds funny, or stupid, or both. To me, it sounds childish – a three-year-old just learning how to speak might see that his mom cooks, so she’s the cooker; or that his dad shaves, so he’s the shaver. George Bush thinks, I decide – so I’m the Decider. In fact, most adults would have gone with the more standard “Decision Maker.” Better yet, how about The Presider – one who could emanate a quiet but confidant authority – something like a leader.
But now that the longest presidential campaign in history has begun, let’s take a Language Lady-look at what’s going on with two of the most talked-about candidates:
Rhymes with Iraq
At my fingertips as a I write is a February 9, 2007 copy of the German-language, Swiss newspaper supplement, Das Magazin, and I thought I’d share some of the terms the cover story uses to describe the newly announced presidential Democratic candidate from Illinois: The subtitle of the article says that this candidate is “jung” (pronounce “j” as “y” and it sounds just like our same word, “young”), schwartz (black) and perhaps the “nachste” (pronounced “next-eh”) Mann im Weissen Haus (man in the White House). Barack Obama, the magazine says, is “der Superstar” of “amerikanischen Politik” (American politics) and “bringt” (brings) “Schwitzen” (sweat) to, or rather, is making female Presidental candidate Hillary Clinton break out in a sweat.
Das Magazin reporter Peter Haffner then starts the main text by saying that the candidate’s first name rhymes with Iraq; that his middle name recalls that of a recently hanged dictator; and that his last name sounds similar to the most sought-after terrorist in the world; and that all together, Barack Hussein Obama is the phonetic embodiment of the American nightmare. And yet, the article adds, this man has a good chance of being President Bush’s successor.
Not only successor: The title of the article is “Der Erloser,” or The Savoir.” Yes, as in Jesus. I wondered, given how closely German and English are related, just how “Erloser,” with LOSER so central and prominent, could mean something so opposite. The German word, “losen,” with an umlaut over the “o” making it sound more like “loozen,” means to “untie,” or “loosen,” or basically, to come undone. But stick the prefix “er” on it and it makes it the opposite: to bring together, unite – or, in a bigger context, to redeem and save.
Now, In addition to calling himself The Decider, our current president --the most polarizing president in recent history – also claimed he was “a uniter” (In a May 1999 interview Bush said: “I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.”) Well, I suppose we should be grateful that he hasn’t claimed to be anything more grandiose. Whether Barack – who openly refers to God and his personal faith in the Almighty – ever calls himself “The Savior” remains to be seen.
Rhymes with Pillory
Then there is Hillary. Last fall, prior to the November elections, our senator’s “Re-elect Hillary” posters and bumper stickers deliberately left off her maiden and married last name. With the single name, “Hillary,” she joined the ranks of such last-name-less celebs as Cher, Madonna, and (at least for now) Britney, Paris, and Lindsay; that way, we could almost forget that the former Hillary Rodham was married to the scandal-tainted, former President Bill Clinton. Hillary, it seems, wanted to be re-elected as Herself.
But now that Hillary has declared herself an official Democratic presidential candidate, the little words “Rodham” and/or “Clinton” are creeping onto her campaign posters and other paraphernalia. “Hillary” still dominates but perhaps she now wants the possible booster-connection to her hubby, who these days is widely seen as a post-Katrina humanitarian, a man of the people, and a down-home boy, whose intern-related disgrace nine years ago seems, after six years of Bush-patrol, pretty innocuous.
But whatever Hillary does, it seems she does the wrong thing. Her decisions seem so connected to polls or the majority opinion that, when those opinions change, she changes her stance faster than a driver trying to avoid a dog in the road. If she leaves Bill’s name off her posters one time, the next thing you know, she puts him on. If she puts on a strong, assertive front to win the senate seat, the next thing you know she’s being told she’s too masculine in her efforts, that she should take advantage of her femininity. Next thing you know, she’s in Iowa meeting with women in someone’s living room. If she’s told she’s too cold and ambitious, then she attempts warm and fuzzy; but when her official HillaryClinton.com website came out a few weeks ago, reviewers derided her as fake and a poor actor.
Maybe Hillary simply wants no enemies. But it comes off as is The Vacilator. Or the Greatest Common (and Power-Amassing) Denominator.
Just last week the fashion designer Donnatella Versace chimed in, saying that Hillary should stop wearing pants,* especially in blue, and go for knee-length dresses instead. No doubt Hillary will be soon sighted looking like some Breakfast at Tiffany’s “Hillary” Golightly in a not-so-sleek black, knee-length cocktail dress.
But even if Hillary happens to wear some tasteful, fitted suit, someone will no doubt make some crack about her having fat legs or fleshy knees, and she’ll revert to *trousers:” (Donnatella actually used the word, “trousers,” which the British seem to favor over our “pants;” “trousers” comes from the Scottish Gaelic “triubhas,” the name for the tight-fitting breeches worn (sometimes) under men’s tartan kilts).
You could say that Hillary is a real sucker for words – that is, other peoples’ words. It would be great if we could have a woman president, and one we could dub The Listener – who could listen to other experts and make well-informed decisions. What we don’t need is a Chief Executive Hearer. The difference between “hearing” and “listening,” as with “seeing” and “looking,” is a question of focus and attention. And we don’t need a President who behaves like a hearing aid that picks up all the background noise and none of the foreground.
As for Das Magazin’s jibe that Barack’s candidacy is making Hillary break out in a sweat, my father would have begged to disagree: “Horses sweat; men perspire; and ladies … glow,” he liked to remind me.
But back when ladies glowed, a women and a black man were not running for president. We’ve still got about 600 days to go, so it’s a bit early for any of us to be Deciders on Winners. So I say, Hail to the Chief Presider, whoever (s)he may be!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Gender Specific
Back in the misty days of 7th grade, first-year French I remember a particular class somewhere in the middle of the year in which a boy, Willie C., raised his hand and asked, “Why are ‘question’ and ‘problem’ feminine but ‘book’ and ‘paper’ masculine?” This question seemed to hit a nerve: up until then we had obediently accepted this seemingly random categorization of nouns into male and female words but had not the faintest clue why. Willie’s question prompted an outpouring: who decided that ‘pen’ and ‘pencil’ were masculine, but ‘door,’ ‘roof,’ and ‘window’ were feminine?” Why was ‘the wind’ masculine and ‘war’ feminine? and so on. Ultimately, was this a boy-girl thing, or what?
The teacher calmly – but firmly – told us it was strictly grammatical, nothing personal. There was an edge in her tone that said, “Don’t ask me anymore.” (Perhaps she thought looking any deeper would stall the growing Women’s Movement?) A few years later I found out that Spanish had a similar masculine-feminine randomness but at least it was visually easier to tell male nouns from female nouns.
In college, when I started taking German, I discovered that language not only divided nouns into masculine and feminine, but neuter as well. I didn’t try to make sense of the categories – including why “girl” was neuter; instead, I simply tried to master the differences by color-coding my vocabulary sheets – I wrote masculine words in red; feminine in green; and neuter in yellow. (Bad idea: by the time I took my exam, I couldn’t remember if a word were green or red or yellow and botched the whole thing.)
But despite what my French teacher said, I am not convinced” that “gender” and “grammatical gender” have nothing to do with each other – why would they both be called “gender”? And if it weren’t a male-female thing, then why are nouns called masculine, feminine, and yes, even neuter – and not just Type A, B or C?
Some languages – including aboriginal Australian and Polish – distinguish between animate and inanimate things, in addition to the usual masculine, feminine and neuter. (And one aboriginal language even has a noun category for hunting weapons and dogs.)
Given that languages and their genders were formed in prehistory, the reasons for categorizing nouns and corresponding parts of speech into genders have been lost to time. My guess is that people began classifying each other as “masculine” or “feminine” and then started extending the classifications to other things, with each culture deciding what had male qualities and what had female or neuter qualities. Mixed in with spiritual beliefs as portrayed in say, Disney’s Pocohantas, -- i.e. that one’s ancestors could be reborn as animate or inanimate objects -- could have lent further chaos among those early “language deciders.” Imagine: “Tree is feminine – that’s my grandmother.” “Are you kidding? Look at that tree – big, strong, straight up! It’s masculine!”
Thus, for example, “tree” is masculine in French, Spanish, and German but feminine in Portuguese, and neuter in Norwegian. Different cultures, different perspectives.
Still, after a while people must have given up trying to see the “maleness” or “femaleness” or even neutrality of a noun and instead just randomly gave it a gender. That might explain why the Portuguese “tree” is feminine but their word for tree “trunk” is masculine – the Whatever! Syndrome no doubt set in.
English has a “natural gender” style – anything that isn’t a living-breathing male or female human, or domestic pet, is an “it.” What could be easier? Yet does that make our language and culture free of gender distinctions and contradictions – no way! The Women’s Movement has helped change a lot of words or terms that once defined roles or jobs that belonged predominantly to one sex or the other -- words like, “chairman” and “stewardess” have become “chair person” and “flight attendant.” Even “actress” and “waitress” – with French-inspired feminine endings – are beginning to be discarded in favor of simply “actor” and “waiter.”
The one pronoun English needs now is for a singular gender-neutral third person, singular, possessive, which would rid us of dilemmas in sentences like: “Each employee must fill out his/her own time sheet.” At this point, the choices are either the awkward “his/her” or the ungrammatical “their.” Linguists have come up with some suggestions but, just as English itself was formed, the masses will ultimately make the decision over time.
Women have already forged ahead with how they choose to be called in business when a courtesy title is necessary: Some married professionals go with Ms. and their maiden names; some with Ms. and their married names; some with Mrs. and their married names. All are accepted.
As more women appear in powerful positions in government – and sooner or later as leader of the Free World – it will be interesting to watch our genders change with the times: Madame President? (too French; and there’s the association with “madames” in “other” types of houses) Ms. President? or Mrs. President? Mr. First Gentleman? Or Mr. First Man? I guess we’ll cross that gender-bender when we come to it.
The teacher calmly – but firmly – told us it was strictly grammatical, nothing personal. There was an edge in her tone that said, “Don’t ask me anymore.” (Perhaps she thought looking any deeper would stall the growing Women’s Movement?) A few years later I found out that Spanish had a similar masculine-feminine randomness but at least it was visually easier to tell male nouns from female nouns.
In college, when I started taking German, I discovered that language not only divided nouns into masculine and feminine, but neuter as well. I didn’t try to make sense of the categories – including why “girl” was neuter; instead, I simply tried to master the differences by color-coding my vocabulary sheets – I wrote masculine words in red; feminine in green; and neuter in yellow. (Bad idea: by the time I took my exam, I couldn’t remember if a word were green or red or yellow and botched the whole thing.)
But despite what my French teacher said, I am not convinced” that “gender” and “grammatical gender” have nothing to do with each other – why would they both be called “gender”? And if it weren’t a male-female thing, then why are nouns called masculine, feminine, and yes, even neuter – and not just Type A, B or C?
Some languages – including aboriginal Australian and Polish – distinguish between animate and inanimate things, in addition to the usual masculine, feminine and neuter. (And one aboriginal language even has a noun category for hunting weapons and dogs.)
Given that languages and their genders were formed in prehistory, the reasons for categorizing nouns and corresponding parts of speech into genders have been lost to time. My guess is that people began classifying each other as “masculine” or “feminine” and then started extending the classifications to other things, with each culture deciding what had male qualities and what had female or neuter qualities. Mixed in with spiritual beliefs as portrayed in say, Disney’s Pocohantas, -- i.e. that one’s ancestors could be reborn as animate or inanimate objects -- could have lent further chaos among those early “language deciders.” Imagine: “Tree is feminine – that’s my grandmother.” “Are you kidding? Look at that tree – big, strong, straight up! It’s masculine!”
Thus, for example, “tree” is masculine in French, Spanish, and German but feminine in Portuguese, and neuter in Norwegian. Different cultures, different perspectives.
Still, after a while people must have given up trying to see the “maleness” or “femaleness” or even neutrality of a noun and instead just randomly gave it a gender. That might explain why the Portuguese “tree” is feminine but their word for tree “trunk” is masculine – the Whatever! Syndrome no doubt set in.
English has a “natural gender” style – anything that isn’t a living-breathing male or female human, or domestic pet, is an “it.” What could be easier? Yet does that make our language and culture free of gender distinctions and contradictions – no way! The Women’s Movement has helped change a lot of words or terms that once defined roles or jobs that belonged predominantly to one sex or the other -- words like, “chairman” and “stewardess” have become “chair person” and “flight attendant.” Even “actress” and “waitress” – with French-inspired feminine endings – are beginning to be discarded in favor of simply “actor” and “waiter.”
The one pronoun English needs now is for a singular gender-neutral third person, singular, possessive, which would rid us of dilemmas in sentences like: “Each employee must fill out his/her own time sheet.” At this point, the choices are either the awkward “his/her” or the ungrammatical “their.” Linguists have come up with some suggestions but, just as English itself was formed, the masses will ultimately make the decision over time.
Women have already forged ahead with how they choose to be called in business when a courtesy title is necessary: Some married professionals go with Ms. and their maiden names; some with Ms. and their married names; some with Mrs. and their married names. All are accepted.
As more women appear in powerful positions in government – and sooner or later as leader of the Free World – it will be interesting to watch our genders change with the times: Madame President? (too French; and there’s the association with “madames” in “other” types of houses) Ms. President? or Mrs. President? Mr. First Gentleman? Or Mr. First Man? I guess we’ll cross that gender-bender when we come to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)