🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38226F76.1267CEDA@intelligencia.com>,
Kalen  <paradox@intelligencia.com> wrote:
>Ok, that actually did clarify things for me a little. But why do
>they use "male" and "female" to describe the genders of words?
>"Male" and "female" imply sex, not just type, to me. If it has a
>totally separate purpose, then there should be totally different
>words for them and totally separate pronouns/articles for objects
>with sex and without. That would make a lot more sense to me,
>anyway. If there really is a purpose to classifying nouns (I can't
>imagine what it is and it is obviously beneath those who know the
>purpose to give me a simple explanation (I know a fair bit of french
>and see no purpose in that language)) then there should just be
>separate words which are in no way connected to sex. It's way too
>confusing otherwise.

The masculine/feminine/neuter business goes back for centuries-- it's
familiar and there is some correspondence with sex.  We could call them
vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry, but then people would ask why you
have to use vanilla adjectives for men and chocolate for women.

As for the purpose of gender, consider English vs. French:
  --J'ai mis la cle sur le livre.  --Je ne le vois pas.
  "I put the key on the book."  "I don't see it."

Is it the key or the book that the second person can't see?  In French it's
obvious, because of the gender.

Or consider the amusing French film _Le grand blond avec une chaussure
noire_.  The adjectives tell us the title character's sex; the English title
needs to add another noun to give the same information.

Gender agreement may also help in parsing, since it offers extra clues
on what words go with each other.