What is the closest language to English?

Sander   Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:28 am GMT
Come on Adam hurry up!
Adam   Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:55 am GMT
Up, up.
greg   Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:19 am GMT
Je crois que ce qu'Adam a voulu dire (loin de moi l'idée de pendre sa défense...) c'est que l'anglais, bien que dépourvu d'un système de genres formellement grammaticalisés (comme le système de nombres par ex.), admet un système de genres partiels (ou embryonnaires) et sous-jacents.

Le neutre en tant que forme grammaticale n'existe pas en français. Ou plutôt, c'est le masculin qui fait fonction de neutre : verbes impersonnels (il fait beau/chaud/froid...), titres ou professions (ministre, docteur...). C'est tellement vrai que dans le dernier on assiste à un mouvement de féminisation grammaticale en réaction (politique) à la double fonction du genre masculin (masculin + neutre) assimilée par certains féministes (hommes et femmes) à la domination du sexe masculin. C'est ainsi que des mots comme <auteure> ou expressions telles que <la ministre> ont été (relativement récemment) crées et promues. Il va sans dire que ce mouvement de féminisation grammaticale ne fait pas l'unanimité, y compris auprès des femmes : Mme Michèle Alliot-Marie, ministre de la défense, se présente toujours (à l'écrit comme à l'oral) comme <Mme le Ministre>, jamais comme <Mme la Ministre> (un barbarisme à ses yeux).
JJM   Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:38 am GMT
I'm afraid Adam is correct here. English does indeed have three "grammatical genders" - masculine, feminine and neuter. The fact that these genders pretty well correspond to "natural gender" makes them no less grammatical in function.

If I say:

The man in the booth will be back in an hour

I can only substitue "man" with:

He will be back in an hour.

This is no less grammatical gender than substituting "il" for "homme" or "er" for 'Mann."

You seem to be implying that because English doesn't make a table feminine or a lake masculine, it does not have grammatical gender.

Not so.
Damian in Edinburgh   Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:18 pm GMT
The gender question in the English Language really does make things a wee bit awkward sometimes. A good example is when you press 1471 to get details of your last telephone calls. The operator says: "You were called today at 13:26...the CALLER with-held THEIR number". A singular subject with a plural determiner. It sounds awkward and wrong but it's an easy cop out.
Sander   Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:00 pm GMT
JJm, :-)

To quote Travis,

"Adam, pfft. English has no *grammatical gender*, and the marking of natural gender on certain pronouns does not count as such at all. "
Guest   Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:46 pm GMT
"The gender question in the English Language really does make things a wee bit awkward sometimes. A good example is when you press 1471 to get details of your last telephone calls. The operator says: "You were called today at 13:26...the CALLER with-held THEIR number". A singular subject with a plural determiner. It sounds awkward and wrong but it's an easy cop out."

Nevertheless, the use of THEIR in that sentence is correct. Quoting from Webster's:

Main Entry: their
--------------------
2 : his or her : HIS, HER, ITS -- used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses -- W. H. Auden>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=their
Guest   Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:49 pm GMT
"genitive plural demonstrative & personal pronoun"
JJM   Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:44 pm GMT
Sander:

Pfft. To quote myself again:

"The fact that these genders pretty well correspond to 'natural gender' makes them no less grammatical in function."
Sander   Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:48 pm GMT
LOL ... :-)

Where is that Adam he is supposed to defend his 'statement' ):-/
Uriel   Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:17 pm GMT
I agree; using he and she to describe something that really is male or female, like a person or an animal of known sex*, is not the same thing as the grammatical gender of German or Spanish. It does not function the same way.

*or even things that are only poetically female, like boats.
Guest   Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:22 pm GMT
Gender in English is more functional compared to... say gender in French. In English, we know we're talking about a man's belongings or woman's by saying "his stuff" or "her stuff". In French, there is no such distinction by use of gender. Instead "à lui" or "à elle" is appended to confirm whether the person is male or female; "ses affaires à lui/elle" though "ses" here is feminine+plural and carries no functional meaning. I have the impression this is the same for all other Romance languages. I'm not sure about other European languages.
Guest   Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:25 pm GMT
++ "ses" here is feminine+plural and carries no functional meaning except that the noun is plural. I mean its gender doesn't indicate anything here. However, some nouns are distinguished by gender.
greg   Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:03 pm GMT
On voit le neutre ressurgir de temps à autre dans la langue anglaise : An <you guys> a une apparence masculine alors qu'il s'agit d'un neutre (à valeur de masculin et/ou féminin), exactement comme avec le mot français <écrivain> (masculin et/ou féminin), même si certains ont voulu lui ajouter cette horreur absolue : <écrivaine>... (et je ne suis pas mysogine)
greg   Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:16 pm GMT
Misogyne, pardon... Je ne sais même pas écrire le mot !

;)