• Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This legitimately trips up learners. How if the noun is female, it’s correct to use feminine articles/pronouns/etc regardless of the person’s gender, even if you know they’re male. (or vice-versa).

    That and plurals defaulting to male.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just be careful, because the person can be the noun, then the adjective takes on the person’s desired gender.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It might be, you know, hear me out, that “grammatical gender” is a historical misnomer caused by linguistics initially practically only looking at Indo-European languages, which tend to have three noun classes with the word for “woman”, “man”, and “thing” all being in a different category so they became known as feminine, masculine, and neuter, with words assigned to them pseudo-randomly via phonetics. But really noun classes are a much more general thing, Bantu languages have up to 20. Persons, fruits, plants, locations, such things.

      At least in Indo-European languages it’s mostly about ease of reference: “I see a cup and a table. She is broken”. Assuming that cup is female and table male (as in German) that is a very clear and concise statement.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      plurals defaulting to male.

      Except when referring to a group of women. Like “Dos profesoras”