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

> This confuses diachrony with synchrony.
> Granted that _originally_ the msc was a common gender,
> that statement is irrelevant at a synchronic stage

Is there any reason to belive that it is not a common gender today?
Some ancient author called the inanimate class "neuter"
and the common class "masculine"
and these arbitrary terms are still traditionally used,
similarly as some animal described originally as something-saurus
retains this name even if the later research shows that it was a mammal.

> where "one man + a thousand women go with masc. agreement".

It goes still with the common agreement,
but you suppose that it is masculine instead of common
and then are complaining that there is no common gender.

P.A.