Being the feminine a derivation from a common gender indicates that the
male-centrism is much deeper and more compreensive to be considered only
looking in independent (microlinguistics) linguististics.
Maybe it is considerably more a question of antropology than linguistics. If it
is the case, there is no need to be discussed further here.
Pavel, your explanation rose me a question: What about the neuter gender?
According to
http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/I/Indo-European_Languages.html,
the Proto-Indo-European
"Apparently, it also had three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter) for
nouns, pronouns, and adjectives"
edupesquisa
P.S.: as a layperson, I don't what is a -H2 suffix. I tried to find its
definition in Internet, but I had no success
--- "Pavel A. da Mek" <
a.da_mek0@...> escreveu:
---------------------------------
> Using the masculine gender for a compound subject which has,
> at least, one male component
> is one of the most representative manifestations
> from this "embedded" and historical machismo.
This is a nonsense.
No Indoeuropean language has really the masculine gender;
what is called the masculine gender is really the common gender.
There is the -H2 suffix marking feminine gender
but no corresponding suffix to mark masculine gender.
So it is the feminine gender which is privileged by the grammar.
P.A.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/