Since ancient times, a definition of grammatical gender is a complex issue, especially in order to establish the principles that underlie to gender’s categorization and nature of the same category. Aristotle (Rhet. III 5, 1407b) tells us that Protagoras was the first to recognize and classify how many and which are nominal genders. In that classification the ‘masculine’ gender (ἄρρενα) and the ‘feminine’ one (θήλεα) are already present and defined (although they will undergo some variation in the later scholars, both Greek and Latin). The term for the third grammatical gender that we know from some Indo-European languages, σκεύη, means in ancient Greek ‘inanimate objects’ and ‘things’. Further, this term has been modified: Aristotle uses τὸ μεταξύ ‘what is between masculine and feminine’ and Dionysius Thrax attests οὐδέτερον ‘neither’, ‘neither masculine nor feminine’, that is neuter in Latin, ‘neutro’ in Italian. In the τέχνη γραμματική (Tékhnē grammatikḗ) by D. Thrax, there is also the term ‘common’, meaning another gender added to the three already mentioned in the grammatical treaty. The labels ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’ don’t seem to belong to antiquity within classification of genders. In the studies about gender in the early Indo-European language, the opposition between ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’ occurs in some works by Meillet (to quote some of them, 1921 and 1930), correlated with the tripartition of genders, masculine-feminine-neuter. Depending on whether one accepts the reconstruction and the theory that the Proto-Indo-European language knew an original nominal system in which the opposition between animate and inanimate prevailed, earlier than the tripartite system of genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), it remains to choose which kind of terminological pairs previously proposed is more appropriate in domain of gender system in IE languages, especially taking into account the level of linguistic analysis (semantic or syntactic) in which it is used.
Animato e inanimato vs comune e neutro: tratti pertinenti
Meneghel, Roberta
2014-01-01
Abstract
Since ancient times, a definition of grammatical gender is a complex issue, especially in order to establish the principles that underlie to gender’s categorization and nature of the same category. Aristotle (Rhet. III 5, 1407b) tells us that Protagoras was the first to recognize and classify how many and which are nominal genders. In that classification the ‘masculine’ gender (ἄρρενα) and the ‘feminine’ one (θήλεα) are already present and defined (although they will undergo some variation in the later scholars, both Greek and Latin). The term for the third grammatical gender that we know from some Indo-European languages, σκεύη, means in ancient Greek ‘inanimate objects’ and ‘things’. Further, this term has been modified: Aristotle uses τὸ μεταξύ ‘what is between masculine and feminine’ and Dionysius Thrax attests οὐδέτερον ‘neither’, ‘neither masculine nor feminine’, that is neuter in Latin, ‘neutro’ in Italian. In the τέχνη γραμματική (Tékhnē grammatikḗ) by D. Thrax, there is also the term ‘common’, meaning another gender added to the three already mentioned in the grammatical treaty. The labels ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’ don’t seem to belong to antiquity within classification of genders. In the studies about gender in the early Indo-European language, the opposition between ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’ occurs in some works by Meillet (to quote some of them, 1921 and 1930), correlated with the tripartition of genders, masculine-feminine-neuter. Depending on whether one accepts the reconstruction and the theory that the Proto-Indo-European language knew an original nominal system in which the opposition between animate and inanimate prevailed, earlier than the tripartite system of genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), it remains to choose which kind of terminological pairs previously proposed is more appropriate in domain of gender system in IE languages, especially taking into account the level of linguistic analysis (semantic or syntactic) in which it is used.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
