# Why do most languages have Grammatical Gender on inanimate objects? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 24, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381 "2009-09-24T16:14:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/41 "2009-09-26T05:04:07Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I’m reasonably certain that I regularly make use of several tenses. Is it really useful to insist that the only tenses that count are those that are formed strictly with verb endings as opposed to turning the verb into a verb phrase? If English only has 2 cases for most nouns (3 for many pronouns), then most verbs have two tenses. However, there are generally two more forms: the present and past participles. Go, went, going, gone. The past participle is in general the same as the past tense, but often differs in verbs with irregular past tenses. All other tenses and forms use auxiliary verbs, each of which traces its existence back to a standard verb and so linguistically create various types of verbal phrases. If you’re going to call a verb phrase a different tense, you should call every prepositional phrase a different case. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/42 "2009-09-26T13:00:55Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Spanish and Catalan both do have neuter gender, it’s only that, as I said, it’s very rarely used. There are no specific dictionary words (are there?) that have an assigned neuter gender. It’s only every really used in the abstract, but I’d certainly never say that it’s only _rarely_ used, at least in Mexico. “Lo que pasó es…” and similar constructs are pretty common. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/43 "2009-09-26T20:46:52Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I’m reasonably certain that I regularly make use of several tenses. Is it really useful to insist that the only tenses that count are those that are formed strictly with verb endings as opposed to turning the verb into a verb phrase? Well, the fact that you can talk about different times in English doesn’t really say anything useful about English - you could equally well talk about different times in any other human language. Consider the two following facts about Japanese: 1. In Japanese, it is possible to talk about events in the future, the present, the past; 2. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have two tenses: we may refer to these as “past” and “non-past”. Which do you think is more useful or informative? ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/44 "2009-09-26T21:40:13Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > Well, the fact that you can talk about different times in English doesn’t really say anything useful about English - you could equally well talk about different times in any other human language. > > Consider the two following facts about Japanese: > > 1. In Japanese, it is possible to talk about events in the future, the present, the past; > 2. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have two tenses: we may refer to these as “past” and “non-past”. > > Which do you think is more useful or informative? If we’re going to be involving other languages… Latin is generally considered to have six tenses. The verb voco, in those tenses (for simplicity, only the first person singular indicative forms): voco, vocabam, vocabo, vocavi, vocaveram, vocavero Those are the active forms. Let us also look at the equivalent passive forms: vocor, vocabar, vocabor, **vocatus sum** , **vocatus eram** , **vocatus ero** Is it your opinion that Latin only has three tenses in the passive voice, even though those verb phrases correspond precisely in meaning to their one-word active brethren? Is that really the more useful and informative way of looking at it? There’s nothing special about single word versus a verb phrase. If we so desired, we could delete the space and say that havecalled is the tense formed by adding the prefix “have-”. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/45 "2009-09-26T22:19:29Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Is it your opinion that Latin only has three tenses in the passive voice, even though those verb phrases correspond precisely in meaning to their one-word active brethren? Is that really the more useful and informative way of looking at it? Well, useful and informative is a matter of opinion. But in your example, it seems reasonable to say that Latin verbs have no pluperfect passive form, and that this gap is made up by using a phrase consisting of another verb and a participle, similar to how English deals with similar situations. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing special about single word versus a verb phrase. If we so desired, we could delete the space and say that havecalled is the tense formed by adding the prefix “have-”. The prefix “have-” or “has-” and the suffix “-ed”. That’s not really how English works. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/46 "2009-09-26T23:30:09Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > Consider the two following facts about Japanese: > > 1. In Japanese, it is possible to talk about events in the future, the present, the past; > 2. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have two tenses: we may refer to these as “past” and “non-past”. > > Which do you think is more useful or informative? I think the first is more informative because it’s true. Japanese has several tenses. Hanasu - present/future Hanashita - past Hanashite - subjunctive/imperative Hanashiteiru - present progressive Hanaseru - ability And more. I think it’s ridiculous to say complex tenses aren’t tenses. If present progressive tense and past perfect tense aren’t tenses in English, what are they? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/47 "2009-09-26T23:52:04Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > I think the first is more informative because it’s true. Japanese has several tenses. > > Hanasu - present/future > Hanashita - past > Hanashite - subjunctive/imperative > Hanashiteiru - present progressive > Hanaseru - ability > > And more. I think it’s ridiculous to say complex tenses aren’t tenses. If present progressive tense and past perfect tense aren’t tenses in English, what are they? I think they are “modes” ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/48 "2009-09-27T00:04:02Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > Well, the fact that you can talk about different times in English doesn’t really say anything useful about English - you could equally well talk about different times in any other human language. > > Consider the two following facts about Japanese: > > 1. In Japanese, it is possible to talk about events in the future, the present, the past; > 2. In Japanese, verbs and adjectives have two tenses: we may refer to these as “past” and “non-past”. > > Which do you think is more useful or informative? I’ve heard that “went”, “was going”, “have gone”, “had been going”, etc. drives Russian ESLers to drink, because Russian doesn’t have such grammatical constructions that express these shades of meaning. Maybe they’re not tenses, but they are something that not every language has. \*\*\* Re: history of English-- I’ve said more than once that English is the result of Norman soldiers trying to hook up with Saxon barmaids. Should I stop, since it isn’t a creole? ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2009, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/49 "2009-09-27T10:22:26Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > I think the first is more informative because it’s true. Japanese has several tenses. > > Hanasu - present/future > Hanashita - past > Hanashite - subjunctive/imperative > Hanashiteiru - present progressive > Hanaseru - ability And many more indeed. However these (other than the first two on your list) are not usually considered tenses. In the case of “hanashiteiru”, this is often referred to as the progressive “form”, using the non-past or past tense of the verb “iru/imasu”. Having said that, if you want to refer to the kanokei or other verb forms as “tenses”, and that works for you, go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/50 "2009-09-27T17:30:24Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > And many more indeed. However these (other than the first two on your list) are not usually considered tenses. In the case of “hanashiteiru”, this is often referred to as the progressive “form”, using the non-past or past tense of the verb “iru/imasu”. Having said that, if you want to refer to the kanokei or other verb forms as “tenses”, and that works for you, go right ahead. I was reading Wikipedia and I’ll concede that hanashite and hanaseru aren’t tenses as tense is only related to time. However, it says there is debate over whether conjugations with auxiliary verbs, such as present progressive in both English and Japanese, are tenses. I’m sticking with yes. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/51 "2009-09-28T14:07:37Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > If you’re going to call a verb phrase a different tense, you should call every prepositional phrase a different case. So, in this sentence, “'re going to call” and “should call” would be tenses of the verb “to call” (the former being a variant of the tense form “are going to call”). I could live with that, but it means that English has lots of tenses, including at least three future tenses (“I will call”, “I am going to call” and “I am about to call”) with three corresponding progressive forms (“I will be calling”, “I am going to be calling” and “I am about to be calling”). ---
**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:** [September 28, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/52 "2009-09-28T20:02:07Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > In German itself, which remains the most morphologically intricate Germanic language, **except for Icelandic** Erratum: (see bold). ---
**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:** [September 28, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/53 "2009-09-28T21:02:00Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > Yes. There remain 4 distinct noun forms in the written language: hand, hand’s, hands, hands’. Unfortunate that three of them are pronounced identically for most nouns! > . NB for the purposes linguistic analysis, spelling is not a consideration, so regular nouns have only two forms. But with some irregular nouns you do get four distinctive case/number markings: child, child’s, children, children’s. “Ah, my child’s geese’s goslings, how they proliferate!” 😃 One thing I find interesting is how one language might be more complex inflectionally than another, but then use the same word for different meanings that have their own words in the simpler language. For example French and German both use the same word–_porter_ and _tragen_ respectively-- to mean “wear” and “carry”. And although I don’t normally think about it when I’m using German, it does seem odd that formal “you” (_Sie_) is the same word as “they”. Except for the fact that, in writing, it is capitalized when meaning “you”, it is inflected the same as “sie” and takes the same verb conjugations. ---
**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:** [September 28, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/54 "2009-09-28T21:03:46Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > Unhelpful fact: _twain_, as in the fixed phrase “never the twain shall meet”, is a barely retained masculine form, alongside _two_, which is from the feminine or neuter form. But very interesting nonetheless! ---
**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:** [September 28, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/55 "2009-09-28T23:02:30Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > In at least one group from Lindlar that was visiting on an exchange program that I mey they rarely used gender in the nominative when I heard them speaking in German, instead opting for a neutral “de” (approximately: duh) a lot of the time. Though it could have been an effect of them speaking English more than usual I’ll admit. Can’t remember what they did to other cases, my German was never great so it was tough following the conversations, but gender at least seemed to be retained in dative. > > Anecdote is not data etc etc… Maybe they were speaking a nonstandard dialect? Plattdeutsch, or “Lowland German” does exhibit a merging of genders which is similar to that of Swedish and Dutch, although it has not gone as far. The system of inflection generally is much simpler than in Standard German. > [@](#): > > Substantives (as in Standard German) have three genders: masculine (m.), feminine (f.), and neuter (n.). > \* de Mann (“the man”), accusative: den Mann > \* de Fru (“the woman”), accusative: de Fru > \* dat Kind (“the child”), accusative: dat Kind – \* (This and the following quotes are excerpted and translated from German Wikipedia article [here](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattdeutsch#Artikel_und_Substantiv). \* Elsewhere the article tells us that there are only two cases, nominative and accusative, the latter standing in for dative and accusative in Standard German. Aside from pronouns, there is no longer any possessive or genitive; instead one says “the X his Y”\*\*. From the example above, it’s evident that in a great many cases there would be no marking for the accusative case, nor for grammatical distinctions between masculine and feminine. So it’s pretty clear here that both grammatical gender and case marking is on the verge of extinction. > [@](#): > > The gender of nouns, in the case of some words, is not clearly set, and does not always agree with the gender of the corresponding Standard German word: > \* de/dat Band (“cord” or “twine”): m. or n. > \* de Distel (“thistle”): m. or f. > \* de/dat Schiet (Dreck, Schmutz): m., f. or n. These examples demonstrate that, for some words at least, grammatical gender has ceased to be a useful (i.e. information bearing\*\*\*) component of the language. I suspect that grammatical gender and case marking in this language is not much longer for this world, and this may well provide us a glimpse of how gender was lost in English. \*Plattdeutsch comprises various dialects, not all of which have necessarily undergone simplification to this extent. In general, however, nonstandard German dialects are morphologically simpler than the standard language. \*\*Ths construction existed in English until the early modern era. In the music of the Renaissance, when pieces often named after and dedicated to persons that the composer wished to honor or acknowledge, one often finds titles like “The King Of Denmark His Galliard”. \*\*\* The gender and case system may seem gratuitous, not to say aggravating, to an English speaker trying to learn German or Russian. But they must serve some communicative purpose, or they would have died out. In German there may appear to be no purpose in the fact that “duck” is feminine and “eagle” is masculine if you set out to simply write down a list of bird species; but if you want to refer to an eagle attacking a duck, grammatical gender can and does convey information. In other situations, it may appear unnecessary, although it is natural for languages to have some redundancy. In English, for example, the sole present tense inflection “-s” tells us that the subject is singular. _Usually_ we already know this from the form of the noun, but for nonstandard nouns like “deer”, “fish”, or “horse” (in some contexts) the verb inflection is the only way in which we are told whether there is one or more than one deer, fish, etc. ETA: From **jragon’s** observation that gender seemed to be still discernible in the dative, it doesn’t sound much like Plaatdeutsch. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/56 "2009-09-29T22:33:25Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > One thing I find interesting is how one language might be more complex inflectionally than another, but then use the same word for different meanings that have their own words in the simpler language. For example French and German both use the same word–_porter_ and _tragen_ respectively-- to mean “wear” and “carry”. And although I don’t normally think about it when I’m using German, it does seem odd that formal “you” (_Sie_) is the same word as “they”. Except for the fact that, in writing, it is capitalized when meaning “you”, it is inflected the same as “sie” and takes the same verb conjugations. Something along those lines that’s always baffled me is the English/French come/venir and become/devenir. In meaning, become has nothing to do with come. Be-/de- aren’t considered prefixes in this case. And the English and French words are not cognates and look nothing alike. Yet both become and devenir contain come and venir, respectively. Something else that’s interesting but less puzzling is that the French word demander means ask but looks like demand, complete opposites. I could see how that could come about but it’s confusing nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/57 "2009-09-29T23:47:36Z")
> [@snailboy](#): > > Something along those lines that’s always baffled me is the English/French come/venir and become/devenir. In meaning, become has nothing to do with come. Be-/de- aren’t considered prefixes in this case. And the English and French words are not cognates and look nothing alike. Yet both become and devenir contain come and venir, respectively. Become = come to be. ---
**Author:** ![snailboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@snailboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snailboy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/58 "2009-09-30T01:57:50Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Become = come to be. I should’ve known someone would come along and spoil part of the mystery. I still can’t make sense of the French word though. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/59 "2009-10-05T16:40:43Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Swedish would be an example of a European language that does have gender, but where neither gender is either masculine or feminine. I think that coould be said of the other Scandinavian languages (or dialects if you feel so inclined) as well. > [@hibernicus](#): > > My understanding is that Swedish and Dutch formerly had masculine, feminine and neuter genders, and that over time the masculine and feminine were combined into a common gender, leading to a 2-way division between common and neuter. When I was at school we were taught that there were four genders; masculine, feminine, real and neuter. Masculine words ended with an _-e_ in the indefinite form and _-en_ in the definite: pojke-n (boy, the boy), feminine words ended _-a_, _-an_: mamma-n (mum, the mum) (this would make pappa-n (daddy, the daddy) a feminine word), real gender words were all other words that ended with _-n_: duk-en (tablecloth) and, lastly, neuter words ended with _-t_: bord-et. Since then the grammarians have lumped all _-n_ words together to form a gender called _preterium_ in Swedish. There are some remains of true genders left, though, here and there in different dialects. The only example I can think of in a haste is the sun that might be referred to as _she_. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381/60 "2009-10-05T18:13:27Z")
> [@Floater](#): > > I think that coould be said of the other Scandinavian languages (or dialects if you feel so inclined) as well. Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese all have the usual Indo-European three genders. > [@Floater](#): > > When I was at school we were taught that there were four genders; masculine, feminine, real and neuter. Masculine words ended with an _-e_ in the indefinite form and _-en_ in the definite: pojke-n (boy, the boy), feminine words ended _-a_, _-an_: mamma-n (mum, the mum) (this would make pappa-n (daddy, the daddy) a feminine word), real gender words were all other words that ended with _-n_: duk-en (tablecloth) and, lastly, neuter words ended with _-t_: bord-et. > > Since then the grammarians have lumped all _-n_ words together to form a gender called _preterium_ in Swedish. You’re mixing some stuff up. Preterium is a tense, not a gender. The word for the gender is _utrum_, being a form of the Latin word _uter_, meaning “either” (similarly, _neuter_ means “neither”). Also, you can’t always determine the gender of the word solely by its form: _pappa_ was masculine, even though it is inflected in the typically feminine way. > [@Floater](#): > > There are some remains of true genders left, though, here and there in different dialects. The only example I can think of in a haste is the sun that might be referred to as _she_. Å jänta å ja’, å jänta å ja’ å allt uppå landavägen, å ja’, å jänta å ja’, å jänta å ja’ å allt uppå landavägen. ``` Där mötte ja´ henn´ e môra så rar, **då sola ho sken på himmalen så klar,** å däjli som ljusan dagen ho var - mett hjârte, hvar tog dä vägen? ``` 😃 Of course, that’s hardly an example of modern Swedish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-most-languages-have-grammatical-gender-on-inanimate-objects/511381.md?page=4)