# Was there ever a good reason for male, female, neuter in languages? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 13, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785 "2006-01-13T05:25:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/61 "2006-01-23T03:47:16Z")
Something for those who have been asking questions like, “Did they decide to . . .” to remember is that no one _decided_ anything at all. These features of language develop organically, which is to say that there’s about as much planning involved as with a riot. Did people in the 80s decide to start using “bitchin’” and “gnarly” as their (soon to be outdated) buzzwords? Nope, just happened. Someone thought it would sound cool, others picked it up, still others emulated them, and before you know it the Madonna look-alikes were spouting, like, totally bitchin’ speech patterns. There are people who are old enough to not only remember when the word “party” was only used as a noun, but that using it as a verb would get them verbally spanked with only slightly less vigorousness than someone who used “ain’t” without a trace of irony. Language change happens in spite of language authorities, proscriptive grammars, indoctrination through education, and the disapproval of elders. There’s no planning and no deciding involved. One of the things that continues to fascinate linguists is that while there do seem to be some predictable things about how languages change, and while there are similarities between many languages, there are still so many things about language that show the chaotic and primally creative aspects of our brains. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/62 "2006-01-24T15:13:08Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Take the sea–it is tempermental, ever changing and formidable–and it’s feminine, correct? (it is in French-I just happen to have a French dictionary here). I believe it’s fem in German as well (long time since I looked at German). > > . IIRC _See_ is both feminine and masculine in German. When feminine, it means the ocean, but when masculine it means a lake. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/63 "2006-01-24T15:30:05Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Grammatical gender developed in proto-Indo-European. At first there seems to have been an earlier noun class division based on different criteria than masculine and feminine. Something about the distinction between static and moving, there being two proto-Indo-European roots for ‘fire’, for example: \*_pur-_ and \*_egnis_. One theory is that the noun classes which later came to be called “masculine” and “neuter” were originally moving and static, respectively. What came to be called “feminine” originated as a plural or collective form of other nouns. But why call the difference between \*_pur-_ and \*_egnis_ a difference in gender? They are two different words, but I don’t see any clear relation between the difference between these two words and the general difference between words of different genders. > [@](#): > > Eventually concepts of feminine and masculine, somehow connected with female and male bio forms or social roles, were mapped onto the underlying noun classes based on motion or collectivity. Why a connection was drawn between the original concepts and sex roles is the $64,000 question. Some sort of personification, as posters in this thread have suggested. The time depth of the development under discussion is Neolithic, and when speculating on this I look to shamanistic thought for drawing symbolic connections between the microcosm of the human being and the macrocosm of nature and everything in it. You seem to be saying people literally sat around and made decisions about this stuff. Is that what you mean to be saying? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Spiratu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@Spiratu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiratu)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/64 "2006-01-24T22:40:43Z")
> [@kellner](#): > > Of course gender is not strictly necessary to communicate, but languages simply add complexity in different places. > You are perhaps not aware of the relatively rigid syntax of English because it seems natural to you - just like gender to me. Another example of “unnecessary” complexity in English and many other languages is in verb conjugation and verb-noun agreement (I’m not a linguist, so I probably used the wrong words there). For instance, why do we say: “I am a linguist” “You are a linguist” “He is a linguist?” When we could just use “am” or “all” or “be” for all those forms? Are we just doing it to pass the time and add complexity? Why do we say: “The man runs” but “The men run?” Running’s not any different if more than one person is doing it - why do we add an -s on the end of the verb? I don’t mean to pick on your argument, **Ombre** , because it’s a fascinating question and I’m really enjoying listening to people’s suggestions, but I have the feeling that speakers of French and German use gendered nouns as naturally as we say "I am " but “they are” and are just as unaware of how exactly that complexity came about. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/65 "2006-01-24T22:52:12Z")
> [@Spiratu](#): > > “I am a linguist” > “You are a linguist” > “He is a linguist?” > . Danish is the outstanding example of a European language that does not inflect verbs for person and number at all. In that one regard, at least, it has surpassed even English in simplification, though it does remain more inflected in some other ways. I wonder the period of the Danelaw in England saw Danish being influenced by English just as English was influenced by Danish. ---
**Author:** ![Jayrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Jayrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayrot)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785/66 "2006-01-24T23:53:25Z")
I’d have to put Russian as one of the most simplified in this respect, for the well-known absence of the copula (is, are, am, etc.). Additionally there are no definite articles in Russian. Thus: English: The man is here. Russian: Человек здесь [Chelovek zdyes’]. (lit: Man here). Pretty efficient! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-good-reason-for-male-female-neuter-in-languages/339785.md?page=3)