Re: [tied] Re: How old is the machismo in Romance languages

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@... wrote:
>
>> Anybody who
>> knows anything about IE linguistics knows that this has nothing to do
> with
>> man supremacy, patriarchal culture etc.
>
>
> Pflichtlektüre in this connection: Dwight Bolinger, Language, the
> loaded weapon: the use and abuse of language today, 1980.
>
> Once I'd read that book, I realized that even the most irritating
> feminist is still unreasonably moderate given the situation. There is
> absolutely no cause for male complacency where the pro-male bias of
> language is concerned.

OK, and untill I read it, would you be so kind to tell us what is the main
point of the book? And does it have anything to do with what we are
talking about?
My point is that there is no point saying that it's chauvinistic that for
instance in Slavic lgs one man + a thousand women go with masc. agreement
since this is just a remnant of the fact that what we call masc. gender is
indeed a common gender. Also, gender in IE is probably a result of a
number of funny coincedences, it was definitely not a planned conspiration
to dominate over women.
I do agree that there are many chauvinistic and machistic stuff in lg
today but masculine gender being the default one is not one of those
things and that's all that I'm saying.

Mate