Respect vs. disdain/intimacy, as with the T-V distinction in the second person, would be far more useful to me than gendered pronouns.

Also, this is fantastic:

The Ojibwe language and other members of the Algonquian languages distinguish between animate and inanimate classes. Some sources argue that the distinction is between things which are powerful and things which are not. All living things, as well as sacred things and things connected to the Earth are considered powerful and belong to the animate class. Still, the assignment is somewhat arbitrary, as “raspberry” is animate, but “strawberry” is inanimate.

Yeah, fuck you, strawberries!


This is pretty neat IMO, especially in the sense of how every noun could have an animate or other/house classifier. Especially would be neat to know what they consider animate, like having its own internal life, like would rivers and storms and trees and bodies of water be animate, etc.

The only thing sillier than having two grammatical genders is languages with three or four genders.

Artificial languages don’t have them. And there is a surprisingly serious plan to make lojban the international lingua franca, within a generation or two.


Many artificial languages do have them; they can serve important functions such as cutting down on referent ambiguity.

TIL. Which ones?

Wikidiamonds in the Wikirough

    SFW interesting wiki articles. Doesn’t have to be Wikipedia, but if it’s a smaller wiki, the point of interest can’t just be cringe at the page itself. It’s okay if it’s been a featured article as long as you think most people wouldn’t have read it–and feel free to link directly to an interesting subheading of the page.

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 1 user / week
    • 1 user / month
    • 1 user / 6 months
    • 25 subscribers
    • 11 Posts
    • Modlog