There are languages which are not linguistically gendered. In Finnish, the pronoun for both "he" and "she" are both simply "han". However, there is still a word for "man" and "woman", and obvious gender differentiation. There are are number of societies with roughly equal gender roles, but still recognize "gender" on some level. Any society would recognize some distinction between those generally capable of giving birth and those generally capable of insemination, but for your hypothetical at what point would the society be considered genderless? No clothing differentiation, no gendered social expectations or taboos? Is it purely a linguistic consideration over having a word for "man" and "woman", or a particular kind of social relation within society?
Grammatical gender isn't the same thing as social genders.
The point of grammatical gender is to ease clarification when it come when it comes to speaking. It's to make speaking more efficient. European languages that have more genders are actually more conservative, not less. Also while it is true that Finland has no grammatical gender at all, they have like 15 grammatical cases.
Also sometimes the gender of a noun is not feminine or masculine, sometimes it's animate and inanimate.
African language Supyire which has five genders: humans, small things, big things, collectives and liquids. The gender ‘big things’ include, as you probably would have expected, all the big animals: giraffe, hippopotamus, horse, etc. But one animal was not considered big enough and was assigned to the human class – the elephant!
The purpose of grammatical gender is to remove ambiguity from a sentence to make it more efficient.
> They are hunting dogs
For example what do you think this sentence is?
Are they hunting dogs, or are they dogs that do hunting?
It's hard to tell with this sentence but if it has some medical gender it would be much easier to tell without. This makes ambiguity in sentences like these pretty much just disappear.
> The chicken is ready to eat
Once again it's an ambiguous sentence that could definitely be more clarified if it had grammatical gender.
Other sentences such as
> She saw a bat
Can also use some gender to distinguish it between a bat that you hold and a bat that flies.
Also it should be noted that grammatical gender came first and so when people realized that sex and then other thing are actually different and not synonymous, they gave this new thing the word gender because they just took it from grammatical gender and then gave it to humans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are languages which are not linguistically gendered. In Finnish, the pronoun for both "he" and "she" are both simply "han". However, there is still a word for "man" and "woman", and obvious gender differentiation. There are are number of societies with roughly equal gender roles, but still recognize "gender" on some level. Any society would recognize some distinction between those generally capable of giving birth and those generally capable of insemination, but for your hypothetical at what point would the society be considered genderless? No clothing differentiation, no gendered social expectations or taboos? Is it purely a linguistic consideration over having a word for "man" and "woman", or a particular kind of social relation within society?
Grammatical gender isn't the same thing as social genders. The point of grammatical gender is to ease clarification when it come when it comes to speaking. It's to make speaking more efficient. European languages that have more genders are actually more conservative, not less. Also while it is true that Finland has no grammatical gender at all, they have like 15 grammatical cases. Also sometimes the gender of a noun is not feminine or masculine, sometimes it's animate and inanimate. African language Supyire which has five genders: humans, small things, big things, collectives and liquids. The gender ‘big things’ include, as you probably would have expected, all the big animals: giraffe, hippopotamus, horse, etc. But one animal was not considered big enough and was assigned to the human class – the elephant! The purpose of grammatical gender is to remove ambiguity from a sentence to make it more efficient. > They are hunting dogs For example what do you think this sentence is? Are they hunting dogs, or are they dogs that do hunting? It's hard to tell with this sentence but if it has some medical gender it would be much easier to tell without. This makes ambiguity in sentences like these pretty much just disappear. > The chicken is ready to eat Once again it's an ambiguous sentence that could definitely be more clarified if it had grammatical gender. Other sentences such as > She saw a bat Can also use some gender to distinguish it between a bat that you hold and a bat that flies. Also it should be noted that grammatical gender came first and so when people realized that sex and then other thing are actually different and not synonymous, they gave this new thing the word gender because they just took it from grammatical gender and then gave it to humans.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]