Re. Origin of grammatical genders?

[Taff Rivers]

Food for thought? 

Many of the world's languages get by perfecctly well without any notion of grammatical gender.

Some languages that derive from Indo-Aryan ancestry, like English, which have seen fit to simplify matters somewhat by doing away with such complications, has revealed that they serve no material purpose, no matter how academic the subject matter.

Now, I have this theory that it might well have been necessary to make such distinctions in the distant past.

While most know that there is such a concept of grammatical gender. 

If there anybody that can say why this is so, it must be our learned speakers of the ancient lingo.

It may well be obvious once it's mentioned, but no amount of Googling on my behalf has thrown any light on the linguistic matter.

Regards,

Taff Rivers

[S. L. Abhyankar]

Grammatical gender is a concept, the way it prevails in the speakers of the particular language. Origin of grammatical gender has to be hence checked in the way the particular language evolved and not in the grammar of that language. 

As such, in the context of grammatical gender, Sanskrit is simpler than many Indian languages, since in Sanskrit the verb-form does not change with change of gender of the subject-word. But in many Indian languages, the verb-form changes, if the gender of subject-word changes. For example, 

• in Marathi Raama jaato [Raama (masculine) goes]; Ramaa jaatey [Ramaa (feminine) goes]. 
• It is so in HIndi also Raama jaataa hai; Ramaa jaatee hai. 
  
• In English the verb is common, "goes", regardless of whether the subject is Raama or Ramaa.

The basic fact to be borne in mind is that grammarians of any particular language are never the creators of that language. They try to prepare a framework of rules, by deciphering the styles of speech, prevalent in the particular language. That framework of rules then becomes the grammar of that language. Neither the grammar nor the grammarians would ever be able to explain why in many Indian languages the verb changes with the change in the grammatical gender of the subject word. If it has been so, it has been so; period. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

What is the query by Sri Taff Rivers?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[S. L. Abhyankar]

From the post by Mr. Taff Rivers, What I gathered was that, concept of gender is an avoidable complication. So, I read his query to be in the title of the thread, "Origin of Grammatical gender". I further deduced, whether he was suggesting that the origin needs to be searched in the grammar of the languages. 

Now, thinking further, it comes to mind that this new thread is somewhat of an extension of his other thread about पञ्चतय्यः. There, in understanding the derivation of पञ्चतय्यः, it proceeds as पञ्च => पञ्चतय => पञ्चतयी => पञ्चतय्यः Since both पञ्चतय and पञ्चतयी are adjectival would translate as "five-fold", it seems, by his line of thinking "पञ्चतय => पञ्चतयी" is an avoidable complication. So, his query "Where-from did this concept of grammatical gender originate ?"

We know that in the योगसूत्रम् "वृत्तयः पञ्चतय्यः ...(1'5) the adjective पञ्चतय्यः qualifies the noun वृत्तयः / Since that noun is feminine, the adjective also has to be feminine. But his query can then be considered to be "Why is the noun वृत्ति feminine ? Why should a noun such as वृत्ति have a grammatical gender ?" I may further extend his query to be "Why should common nouns have gender ?" He may grant that personal nouns would have and would need to have genders. But why common nouns and abstract nouns ?"

I hope, such interpretation of his query by me is proper. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

As per 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

"This system is used in approximately one quarter of the world's languages. "

Is the 'why' for all these languages known?

Can one 'why' answer all?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Pradyumna Achar]

>> it might well have been necessary to make

एतत् अयुक्तं | शृतीनां अपौरुषेयत्वात्, अनादित्वाच्च |

>> has revealed that they serve no material purpose

कुत्रास्ति प्रमाणं?

[SriKanth!]

On Gender, in light of Bhartruhari's Vakyapadeeya:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-vlalVdpvKiZ092dWR2U1d5RTR5T0RRN0E0eVVYem53STF3

From the book Bhartrhari by K.A.Subramania Iyer, published by Deccan College Pune, 1992. 

[RamanaMurthy Bathala]

Dear Sir,

Even I was having the same question. The gender for nouns denoting living beings can be justified. How to justify the gender of non-living entities and abstract nouns. How to know the gender of abstract nouns? I need to look in the dictionary. What if I do not have dictionary? My learning comes to a pause or halt.

This is further complicated in Sanskrit by adjectives having gender..

In English, if I want to use the adjective "beautiful" , I need not concern about the gender of noun being qualified (beautiful Rama/Sita/John./Marry).

But in Sanskrit , if I want to use adjective "beautiful", I should first know whether the noun being qualified is masculine, feminine or neuter and I need to change the form of "beautiful" accordingly. Does it seem complicated at least from the point of learning?

Regards

Ramana murthy

[Taff Rivers]

 Goodness gracious me!

I'm getting a growing suspition that something got lost in the translation, way, way back.

Gender!  The descriptions relate entirely to temporal aspects of the substantive in question, the labels express the three temporal periods of change, 

Gender, in either its biological or grammatical senses, simply, doesn't come into it. 

Presented with Bhartṛhari's devanagari descriptions of the three things, for the very first time, there is no way that I would give them the English names, masculine, feminine or neuter.

⦁   the (feminine!) becoming increasingly prominent, appearing from nowhere phase, 

⦁   the (neuter!) continuing in being as fully grown, unchanging phase.

⦁   the (masculine!) becoming decreasing prominent, fading to nothing phase.

(The descriptions and the labels are given in different combinations, but the underlying idea is the same)

I see parallels with William Shakespear's  Seven ages of Man*. 

There they are not only named, but vividly so. 

Though the substantives are limited to human ones the stages similarly temporal.

As to how or why this mis-labelling came about, I can only speculate, but to advance my case, I put forward almost the entire literature as circumstantial evidence

 Viz. their authors invariable preference for synonyms of words, in place of the words themselves. 

Which leaves the original intended word to get lost in the mists of time.

And without authors being around to question,  to be incorrectly reverse engineered, to use a modern term.

I have searched for a full English text version of Bhartṛhari's text on Grammar to add to my collection, but there doesnt seem to be one? 

Regards,

Taff Rivers,

*All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

. . .

[Taff Rivers]

You seem to reagard me as some sort of enemy (:-)

However, please be assured that all is exactly as it appears to be, an unrelated question, which you have shown that you have understood clearly.

What my posts do have in common is the pursuit of factual information.

The question is posed to provoke discussion, so that I (at least), may learn something about linguistics in general.

A topic of a long term interest of mine, please take my question in this same way.

Given that Indo-Aryan is the mother language of the globally spoken English one, it is perfectly reasonable to ask such a question. 

Please be assured that your inferrence is incorrect. 

As I understanding it, the pursuit of knowledge is a laudable affliction.

Regards,

Taff Rivers

[Taff Rivers]

Looks promising.

Thanks I'll give it a closer look.

==>

On Gender, in light of Bhartruhari's Vakyapadeeya:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-vlalVdpvKiZ092dWR2U1d5RTR5T0RRN0E0eVVYem53STF3

From the book Bhartrhari by K.A.Subramania Iyer, published by Deccan College Pune, 1992. 

==>

Regards,

Taff Rivers

[S. L. Abhyankar]

Dear Mr. Taff Rivers !

We learn from each other. We cannot do that if we get into enmity. Having interpreted your query in various ways, I still left my interpretations open for you to comment. Hence the closing sentence of my post was "I hope, such interpretation of his query by me is proper."

Now, many thanks to Mr. श्रीकण्ठ for presenting the PDF "OnGender" "From the book Bhartrhari by K.A.Subramania Iyer, published by Deccan College Pune, 1992." On Page 3/12 I read an interesting question "... is gender शब्दधर्म or वस्तुधर्म ? ...". 

I get to think that grammatical gender is शब्दधर्म, especially in Sanskrit. For example, for the English meaning of "conduct, behaviour", one gets two abstract nouns वृत्तिः and वर्तनम् from one and the same dhaatu वृत्. Of course derivations of वृत्तिः and वर्तनम् are different and that exactly causes their genders being different. The derivations being different makes their grammatical gender, eminently a शब्दधर्म. 

Why should Sanskrit as a language provide for two nearly synonymous abstract nouns to be derived from one and the same dhaatu ? I think different derivations provide for different scope of applications. For example one extended meaning of वृत्तिः is profession or occupation. Such meaning is not in the scope of वर्तनम्. Wider scope of application is the characteristics of the feminist suffix ति. This suffix seems to provide not only wider scope of application, but stronger strength of the characteristics, which is inherent in many feminine abstract nouns such as भक्ति, शक्ति, बुद्धि, in  देवीसूक्तम् - a typical quote "या देवी सर्वभूतेषु शक्तिरूपेण संस्थिता, नमस्तस्यै, नमस्तस्यै, नमस्तस्यै, नमो नमः" 

Often I get to also think that most nouns in Sanskrit are adjectival than nominal. As has been sighted in that PDF, one is left askance, "how can there be a neuter noun कलत्रम् to mean "wife" ?". I think neuter gender of this word कलत्रम् is also a शब्दधर्म. I think it is derived from dhaatu कल् and suffix त्र. This suffix त्र helps to get common nouns meaning "tool for the action implicit in the meaning of the dhaatu. For example 

1. शस्त्रम् is the tool for the action शस् / शंस् to cut. By such derivation a knife is as much a शस्त्रम् as is a sword.
2. अस्त्रम् is the tool for the action अस् / अंस् to hurt by throwing. By such derivation a spear is as much an अस्त्रम् as is an arrow.
3. In like manner कलत्रम् is the tool for the action कल् to make inclined, to decline, to disturb the (mental or physical) balance. An incline on a road is as much a कलत्रम्, as is an enticing beauty. 
1. कलत्रम् = wife is only an extended meaning of कलत्रम्. 
2. Basically how कलत्रम् has come to be a common noun, is only by its शब्दधर्म of use of the suffix त्र, which suffix lends neuter gender to common nouns formed with it. 

I guess, this hypothesis, that grammatical gender is a शब्दधर्म can help to set at rest many doubts. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Sripada-ji,

Absolutely. Sanskrit gender is  शब्दधर्म, that is the reason, in modern parlance, it is being called grammatical gender. If it is  वस्तुधर्म , in modern parlance, it would have been called semantic gender. Sometimes it is called 'natural gender' too. 

Sri Taff's question is 'why certain languages should develop grammatical gender which is not natural? '

Source of all confusion here is thinking about the meaning of the word gender in grammar in terms of gender in nature. Gender in grammar is only metaphorical usage, laakshaNika prayoga; it does not refer to any gender in nature. 

It is the categorisation of morphophonemic changes occurring differently to different roots. roots leading to/allowing a certain kind of morphophonemic changes to form a word are considered to belong to a certain 'gender'. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:38:29 AM UTC+5:30, Taff Rivers wrote:

Food for thought? 

Many of the world's languages get by perfecctly well without any notion of grammatical gender.

Some languages that derive from Indo-Aryan ancestry, like English, which have seen fit to simplify matters somewhat by doing away with such complications, has revealed that they serve no material purpose, no matter how academic the subject matter.

Now, I have this theory that it might well have been necessary to make such distinctions in the distant past.

While most know that there is such a concept of grammatical gender. 

If there anybody that can say why this is so, it must be our learned speakers of the ancient lingo.

my pranams to all vidvaj-janas,

in his liṅgānuśāsanam, durgasiṁha has written an introductory verse where he says that without genders, the creation of this world and the entry of various souls into this creation is not possible. Thus, gender is an eternal principle:

स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसकत्वेन भिन्नं येन चराचरम्।

लिङ्गं जयति तन्नित्यमशेषागमकारणम्॥

Explanation of verse: इयम्-अयम्-इदम्-इति येषु बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते स्त्री च पुमांश्च नपुंसकं च, तानि स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसकानि, तेषां भावः स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसकत्वम्। करणे तृतीया। येनेति कर्तरि। भिन्नमिति कर्मणि। चरा मानुषादयोऽचरा वृक्षादयः। चराश्चाचराश्च चराचरम्। अत्र समाहारो द्वन्द्वः। अशेषाणामागमानां कारणं हेतुः। लिङ्गेन विना न सर्वे आगमाः सम्भवन्तीति। नित्यं प्रवाहरूपतया जगदुत्पत्तिलक्षणं तत्कारणवत्तया नित्यमिति श्लेषोऽयमलङ्कारः॥

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri RamanaMurthy Bathala-ji,

Please see the gender in German here:

https://www.lsa.umich.edu/german/hmr/Grammatik/Gender/Gender.html

Do you see that non-living things have masculine and feminine gender?

Do you see that masculine and feminine genders are decided on the basis of word-endings? 

Do you see why someone had to provide "Some Hints on How to Guess Gender" for German?

Do you know that Latin too has gender for adjective and in Latin too gender of the adjective has to be the same as the gender of the qualified noun. 

Do you know French too retains some of such features of Latin , its ancient version?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[RamanaMurthy Bathala]

Dear Nagaraj Sir,

Pranams. At the outset, I request you to pardon me for writing the lengthy reply With due respect, I would like to say that I have no harsh feeling towards Sanskrit. I only expressed my frustration towards difficulty in Sanskrit learning. As as a student, I am facing difficulty in getting the proficiency in the language.

      

A few years back, I joined for Introductory Sanskrit classes in Ramakrishna Math, Hyderabad.After the class session is over, bell used to ring indicating the end of the session. I want to ask the question "Who is ringing the bell?" in Sanskrit. Teacher told me to use "कः kaḥ" in case the bell is rung by male and "का  kā" in case it is rung by female. How, on the earth, I know the male of female is ringing the bell outside, sitting in the class? The sound of the bell is same whether it is rung by male or female. So there is no scope of knowing the gender. Without knowing the gender I can not frame a question in Sanskrit. English says “You don’t need to bother about the gender. Just use the question word “who”. It will serve purpose.” But Sanskrit says “First decide whether it is कः kaḥ or का kā . Then only you can frame the question.” This is one of the times I got frustration while learning the Sanskrit. Finally, teacher told me, in case the gender is not known, use the masculine gender कः kaḥ. This is allowed in Sanskrit grammar. Clearly there is an element of gender bias if I use the word कः kaḥ in the question. First of tell me sir, why I need to invoke gender, if my purpose is to know the name, not the gender, of the person ringing the bell? The use of कः kaḥ is not acceptable to the modern FEMINISTS.

Long back, I used to read the words like “chairman” in the news paper. Probably someone might have argued why not “chair woman?” because women also occupying that position. Then finally ended with the word “chairperson” being used in the media. What I mean to say here is that English has adapted itself to the gender-neutral environment of the contemporary world. My question is whether Sanskrit has that much flexibility to the changing world, the contemporary world? Can it adapt itself to the changing world? Can it fit in the modern world of twitter, sms, chat, Whatsapp where brevity is the rule, rather than the grammar?

Coming back to the original point of difficulty in learning Sanskrit, it is if equally by both teachers / authors and students alike.  I am bring to you two such instances. This difficulty is especially in case of verbs.

1) A GUIDE TO SANSKRIT VERBS PARTS FIRST AND SECOND BY GOVIND SHANKAR SHASTRI BAPAT. Extract from the Preface of the book:

"INFLEXION of verbs in Sanskrit is so peculiarly difficult, that it mocks all attempts to master it. Rules, however judiciously framed, sit so loose upon them, that one finds himself often at a loss."

2) A HIGHER SANSKRIT GRAMMAR- MR KALE . Extract from the Preface of the book:

"But a special feature of the  present Grammar is the chapter on the 'Conjugation of Verbs.' No part of Sanskrit Grammar is more difficult and perplexing and therefore more calculated, to tire out the patience of the young student, than the conjugation of Verbs."

 

If you look at the tone and tenor of the authors, it clearly says Sanskrit grammar, especially verbs” is not easy to learn.

Regards

Ramana murthy

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri  RamanaMurthy Bathala -ji,

The authors quoted by you are speaking from an English learning background just as you are. 

The 'ease' or 'difficulty' in learning a second language (any language learnt after acquiring the mother tongue ) is a matter of perception. 

I showed you the gender situation in German. Aren't people learning that language?

I showed you how in Latin the Sanskrit-like situation exists with regard to the gender, number etc. of the adjective being the same as that/those of the noun qualified by it. Didn't people learn

 that language?

People who speak German, or who spoke Sanskrit or Latin were human beings. Features of those languages are /were born from their collective unconscious convention. 

In nature languages are spoken by human beings. Anything to be 'natural' for languages has to come from their speakers who are part of nature. So grammar of any language which is 

nothing but the collective  convention unconsciously created and agreed upon collectively by its speakers, is 'natural' . Looking at grammar of one kind of language as natural and that 

of others as unnatural is all a product of subjective prejudices. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.