Re: Gender in Pronouns Rob Zook Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:48:09 -0500 Saul Epstein wrote: > > > Well, I would favor the first solution, but I advocate keeping the > > current suffixes for masculine, feminine and neuter non-sentient, > > and creating a new suffix for neuter sentient. > > At this point I'll come out into the open and say I disapprove of the > form of the original masculine and feminine particles almost as much > as I disapprove of the obligatory gender-marking itself. looks > too much like a derivative of . I know that the derivation could > just as easily run the other direction, so that is prior. But it > bugs me nonetheless. Hmm..,now that you mention it, that does seem a little distressing. I had not even registered that fact. > Suppose and were obligatory, the one meaning "sentient" and > the other meaning "non-sentient." Suppose further that could be > optionally modified by the addition of meaning "feminine" or > meaning "masculine." That would preserve two out of the original > three pronouns intact, re-assign the third, and create a fourth. Male Female sentient non-sentient ZC w wl n New wr wl w n I like the way that looks, yes. > > However, if that's unacceptable, I still think we should at least > > address the problem by modifying the meaning of the neuter > > non-sentient to include sentients as well. > > You mean, the second of my first two suggestions? Yes. Rob Z.