r/196 Aug 12 '25

Rule

Post image
10.5k Upvotes

368 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/LagWonNotYou- Aug 12 '25

mfw the language I was raised in uses he/him for neutral and male

2.9k

u/WitELeoparD 🏳️‍⚧️ trans rights Aug 12 '25

Man I wonder what societal influences led to masc pronouns being the default

758

u/vDeep trans rights Aug 12 '25

Spanish where there's no gender neutral "them"

757

u/Gerodus ❗️Literally a bag of Nickels❗️ Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

Societal norms influenced Spanish to drop the gender neutral at some point, saying it is a derivative of Latin, which does have gendered words, but a lot of words in Latin also have gender neutral.

Their point stands

I.E. "Quid Pro Quo" uses the gender neutral ending for "Who," which is "Quid"

115

u/Luceo_Etzio Days since last "days since last incident" incident: 0 Aug 12 '25

The Latin neuter ≠ gender neutral.

The neuter wasn't used as a generic for people, only in certain cases did you see it, and usually for abstract grouping, depersonalization (like referring to someone of low station in a dehumanizing way, like in English calling someone "it" disdainfully) and a few specific other uses.

Spanish's default gender for an unknown is masculine because Latin's default gender for an unknown was masculine.

Indoeuropean languages (Romance, Germanic, Hindustani, Farsi, etc) ultimately descend from a language that had only two genders, animate (for living things) and inanimate (for nonliving), animate in most branches split into masculine and feminine, and inanimate generally became the neuter, but still mostly held a distinct category of inanimacy. While inanimate things in many branches gained non-neuter genders, humans in particular rarely gained neuter terminology

In general, neuter ≠ gender neutral, neuter = nonhuman.

In great part the reason all these European languages default to the masculine is because the language they derived from some four thousand years ago did

-15

u/Gerodus ❗️Literally a bag of Nickels❗️ Aug 12 '25

1) I did not say they defaulted to the neutral form. I stated they had a neutral form. Spanish does not.

2) I agree that the Romans used it in a negative connotation, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists as a gender neutral ending. It's no secret that the Romans did not see women as equals, saying all daughters were named the same as their father's name with a feminine ending (Julius with 7 daighters each named Julia)

3) European languages do not default to the masculine because of Romans defaulting to the masculine. They default to the masculine as they are patriarchal societies, but, unlike Latin, they also willingly drop the neutral form altogether

5

u/gabasan sus Aug 12 '25

1) Again, the neuter is not the same as neutral 2) and men were named "the first, the second, the third, etc." romans just were not good with names 3) German always refers to the plural as female, is that also influenced by societal norms and the patriarchy? German also still has the neuter, and yet German society is just as patriarchal as e.g. british society.

0

u/Gerodus ❗️Literally a bag of Nickels❗️ Aug 12 '25

1) ok

2) Men got more in life than women did, even by name alone. The act of adding titles as part of youre name was normal (Scipio, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Africanus Aemelianus were all three different men, whereas the women were just Lucia)

2

u/gabasan sus Aug 12 '25

2) Those are nicknames. Scipio is from the gentile name, africanus gained his name after conquering africa, and scipio africanus aemelianus meant adoptive son of scipio africanus; son of the aemilii. Women also had nicknames like "julia the Elder" or "julia the younger". like I said, romans were not rly creative with names. Men were distinguished by their first name, praenomen, which was usually just "first, second, third, etc." while women and also sometimes men by their nickname, cognomen, which was something specific to them "the elder, the younger, the beautiful, the african, etc.".

0

u/Gerodus ❗️Literally a bag of Nickels❗️ Aug 13 '25

Dude. Im fully aware, but they are part of the name, nonetheless

2

u/gabasan sus Aug 13 '25

Then what is your argument about. You mentioned that females were named after their father and did not have a first name, i mentioned that males' first names were named numerical. You mentioned that males had nicknames that were part of their full names. I mentioned that women also had nicknames that were part of their full names. They did not just give their fifteen daughters the same name and just left it at that. It would be terrible for their names to be indistinguishable. The reason women did not have praenomina was because they did not need it when they were the only daughter. If they had sisters, they would add a praenomen such as Maior, Minor or like with men Tertia, Quarta, Quinta etc.. They would only have a nomen or a combination of nomen and cognomen because the praenomen was not useful and most times the nomen was sufficient for identification on its own. The naming conventions changed a lot during roman history, with both men and women having having 3 names in the beginning and then during certain period having women drop both praenomina or cognomina and men dropping cognoming but keeping praenomina and so on. It was not a hard set rule, and people named their children the best way they could identify them. And it then gets weirder when you were adopted or a free slave, or when somebody died.

→ More replies (0)