--- In cybalist@..., guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:
>
> True. The problem would not have been one of concept but rather of
adaptation. To elaborate on this theory, should we be comparing the
gender of the irregular Germanic forms with the supposed gender of
Celtic nouns?
>
I saw once a letter from a reader to the Guardian which put the
question: How do the speakers of a language with gender know which
gender to assign to new loanwords? I didn't see the answer.
As for as I know the process is complex. A loanword may contain an
ending similar to one that's been imported before (English words in -
ing are assigned n. when borrowed into German, although German words
ending in the cognate -ung are all f., presumably they are thought to
be similar to verbal nouns derived from the infinitive in -en; in the
Scandinavian languages -ing is "identified" as the native -(n)ing and
therefore c(ommon gender)), or it be felt to be a "new version" of a
native word ("ikon" in the new sense in Danish (PC; idol) is now n.,
but in the old meaning "Greek orthodox miniature portrait of saint"
it is c.). In short, it is difficult to set up hard and fast rules.
Therefore it would be difficult to prove Celtic influence based
on "gender bending" in the resulting language. Besides, in my
opinion, the result seems to have been total, not partial, confusion,
and the abandonment of gender altogether in the resulting creole
language.
BTW Hasn't Farsi lost gender, in similar sociolinguistic
circumstances?
> Guto
>
> I remain very interested in your theories concerning the origins of
Germanic, and those concerning Celts in the east (contacts with
Scythians etc.).
>
>
Well, I'm no Celtics expert. Enjoy yourself!
Torsten