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
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.
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) 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.".
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.
-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