# natural and grammatical gender in Germanic languages



## Nino83

Hello everyone.

I read on "The Germanic Languages" (Cambridge) that in these languages there are two different types of noun genders, natural and grammatical.

*1) The first question is*: are there cases, in those (Germanic) languages with three genders and rich morphology (e.g Icelandic, German), where natural gender is possible and/or preferred, or is the grammatical gender rule as strict as in the Romance languages?

Example:
Mädchen, girl, neuter, animate => Er sah es/*sie* (?)
Kind, kid, neuter, animate => Sie sah es/*ihn* (?)
Bus, bus, masculine, inanimate => ich fuhr ihn/*es* (?)
Pasta, pasta, feminine, inanimate => ich aß sie/*es* (?)

Is it possible to use natural gender in these sentences?

*2) The second question is*: why did Swedish and Danish (and Bokmål Norwegian) develope a special pronoun for inanimate objects, "den/det", while Dutch didn't, seeing that in all these languages there was a merger between masculine and feminine nouns?

As far as I know, in Swedish they say (book, formerly feminine, now common gender) "Jag läste den" (I read it) and (bil, formerly masculine, now common gender) "Jag körde den" (I drove it) while in Dutch for inanimate common nouns (at least in the standard variant) the masculine pronoun "him" is used. On the other hand, for animate neuter nouns both neuter, masculine and feminine pronouns can be used, i.e both grammatical and natural gender can work.

Thank you


----------



## berndf

1) Within a sentence, agreement rules are strict. Another thing is, if you introduce a girl with _Mädchen _in one sentence and two are three sentences further down the road you refer to her by a pronoun then the connection to the word _Mädchen_ might have been lost in speakers minds and they use _sie_ instead of _es_.

2) I don't think that is an accurate description _den_ is simply the result of the morphological merger of masculine and feminine and the reason for the _-n_ is that it is etymologically an accusative form. Danish and Swedish did not "develop a special pronoun".
The difference between North and West Germanic languages is that in Danish and Swedish the third person singular personal pronouns developed out of the same demonstrative pronoun as the definite article (the same at English _that_ and _the_) and underwent the same merger while the West Germanic third person singular personal pronouns developed out of a different pronoun (the otherwise extinct Proto-Germanic demonstrative pronoun _*hiz_) where the masculine-feminine merger did not take place in Dutch.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> 1) Within a sentence, agreement rules are strict.


So is it normal in German to use natural gender in these cases?   
That girl went to the supermaket and bought apples. Then, she went home. 
*Das* Mädchen geht zu dem Supermarkt(e) und schaffte an Äpfel. Dann *sie* geht zu dem Haus. 
Did you see that girl? Yes, I saw her. 
Sahst du *das* Mädchen? Ja, ich sah *sie*.  


berndf said:


> The difference between North and West Germanic languages is that in Danish and Swedish the third person singular personal pronouns developed out of the same demonstrative pronoun as the definite article (the same at English _that_ and _the_) and underwent the same merger while the West Germanic third person singular personal pronouns developed out of a different pronoun (the otherwise extinct Proto-Germanic demonstrative pronoun _*hiz_) where the masculine-feminine merger did not take place in Dutch.


The interesting thing is that, among North Germanic languages, the West Scandinavian ones (Icelandic, Nynorsk) don't have neither merger nor "den" while the East Scandinavian ones (Swedish, Danish, Bokmål) have both merger and "den" as pronoun (for common gender inanimate objects).


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> So is it normal in German to use natural gender in these cases?
> That girl went to the supermaket and bought apples. Then, she went home.
> *Das* Mädchen geht zu dem Supermarkt(e) und schaffte an Äpfel. Dann *sie* geht zu dem Haus.
> Did you see that girl? Yes, I saw her.
> Sahst du *das* Mädchen? Ja, ich sah *sie*.


Possible because it is not in the same sentence but breaking the grammatical agreement in sentence so close sounds a bit weird. PC fanatics might of course see this differently.


Nino83 said:


> The interesting thing is that, among North Germanic languages, the West Scandinavian ones (Icelandic, Nynorsk) don't have neither merger nor "den" while the East Scandinavian ones (Swedish, Danish, Bokmål) have both merger and "den" as pronoun (for common gender inanimate objects).


Icelandic and Nynorsk are lacking the masculine-feminine merger completely, not just with pronouns. As to the the third person singular pronouns, the situation in Nynorsk is as in Low German: the masculine and feminine pronouns are derived from _*hiz_ and the neuter pronoun from _*sa_ while in English, Dutch and High German all three are derived from _*hiz_. These differences are not overly important as both _*hiz _and _*sa_ derived pronouns were originally used interchangeably as personal pronouns with only a nuance difference in meaning. In German this is to some degree still the case, especially in colloquial use (_Ich habe vorhin mit meinem Chef gesprochen. *Er/Der* wollte, dass ich heute länger bleibe._)


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> Possible because it is not in the same sentence but breaking the grammatical agreement in sentence so close sounds a bit weird.


Which sounds weirder? 
"Dann *sie* geht zu dem Haus. Ja, ich sah *sie*." or "Dann *es* geht zu dem Haus. Ja, ich sah *es*."?  


berndf said:


> As to the the third person singular pronouns, the situation in Nynorsk is as in Low German: the masculine and feminine pronouns are derived from _*hiz_ and the neuter pronoun from _*sa_ while in English, Dutch and High German all three are derived from _*hiz_.


Ah, oh, I see. Dutch has "het" as neuter personal pronoun and "dat" as demonstrative pronoun, while Scandinavian languages have "det" as neuter personal pronoun. 
At the same time the usage of natural and grammatical gender is similar in all Germanic languages, is it right? Natural gender for humans and grammatical gender for objects and animals, isn't it?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Which sounds weirder?
> "Dann *sie* geht zu dem Haus. Ja, ich sah *sie*." or "Dann *es* geht zu dem Haus. Ja, ich sah *es*."?


Both sentences sound so wrong that it is difficult pay attention to anything else than the violation of V2, the strongest syntax rule there is in German.

I can't understand what you are trying to express. In front of _Ja, ich sah sie/es_ I would have expected a question but there is a full stop and not a question mark. So I don't know how to rearrange the sentence.

But anyway, the referent noun of _sie/es_ is not present in the example, so I could't answer your question, even if I know how to correct the word order.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Natural gender for humans and grammatical gender for objects and animals, isn't it?


Grammatical gender if there is a clear referent noun the pronoun stands for. Natural gender if there isn't.
Look at this example:


Peterdg said:


> So, you can hear the following: "De koe staat in de weide. *Hij* is nog niet gemolken".


_Hij _is being reinterpreted as the pronoun of the _common gender_ which is the grammatical gender of _de kow_ but not its natural gender.


----------



## Dib

berndf said:


> Both sentences sound so wrong that it is difficult pay attention to anything else than the violation of V2, the strongest syntax rule there is in German.
> 
> I can't understand what you are trying to express. In front of _Ja, ich sah sie/es_ I would have expected a question but there is a full stop and not a question mark. So I don't know how to rearrange the sentence.
> 
> But anyway, the referent noun of _sie/es_ is not present in the example, so I could't answer your question, even if I know how to correct the word order.



I think, I understand Nino's question. It refers back to post #3. I'll fix the word order, and normalize the register a bit, so that you can judge without distractions (hopefully). I hope, Nino will correct me if I screw up the original question:

So, which of the following ones sound better/weirder?

1.a) *Das* Mädchen geht zum Supermarkt und kauft Äpfel. Dann geht *sie* nach Hause.
1.b) *Das* Mädchen geht zum Supermarkt und kauft Äpfel. Dann geht *es* nach Hause.

2.a) Hast du *das* Mädchen gesehen? Ja, ich habe *sie *gesehen.
2.b) Hast du *das* Mädchen gesehen? Ja, ich habe *es* gesehen.


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> while in Dutch for inanimate common nouns (at least in the standard variant) the masculine pronoun "him" is used.


This isn't considered standard in any way  The "Belgian" way of saying hij for masculine nouns and zij for feminine nouns is considered standard, also in the Netherlands. Your average Dutchmen just won't say it that way.

Someone with a PhD in linguistics at the university of Amsterdam likely won't say "Hij is gemolken." in public.


----------



## Nino83

@berndf
Ahah, I made a mess (trying to translate word by word) 
@Dib
Thank you very much! That was my question.  

(In English: 
That girl went to the market and bought some apples. Then she/it went home. 
Did you see that girl? Yes, I saw her/it.)


Red Arrow :D said:


> This isn't considered standard in any way


So is it colloquial?


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> So is it colloquial?


More or less. You won't hear it in a news bulletin, however, I have read online that Dutch speakers don't learn anything about the use of the pronouns hij/zij/het and zijn/haar in elementary school or high school. No curriculum wants Dutch children to learn which words are female and which aren't.

It is also changing in Belgium. People who didn't grow up with a local dialect have the same 'problem' as Dutch children. No doubt Standard Dutch will change in the future.


----------



## Nino83

Red Arrow :D said:


> It is also changing in Belgium.


Isn't there a standard Flemish Dutch language with three grammatical genders, or do you follow standard Dutch grammatical rules at school?


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> Isn't there a standard Flemish Dutch language with three grammatical genders, or do you follow standard Dutch grammatical rules at school?


Standard Dutch and Standard Belgian Dutch have the same grammar rules.


----------



## Nino83

Does it mean that Standard Dutch has three grammatical genders? 
Most Dutch grammar books for foreign speakers are based on a system with only two genders (common and neuter).


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Does it mean that Standard Dutch has three grammatical genders?
> Most Dutch grammar books for foreign speakers are based on a system with only two genders (common and neuter).


It depends on register. Old literary standard Dutch prescribed case distinction, modern standard does not. Like in Low German, the only remaining distinction between masculine and feminine is in the accusative case. So, the completion of the gender merger depends on _accusativsm _which still exists in Southern colloquial and has disappeared in Northern colloquial.


----------



## Nino83

And the "common" (Dutch and Flemish) standard Dutch grammar is based on "nominativism" or "accusativism"?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> And the "common" (Dutch and Flemish) standard Dutch grammar is based on "nominativism" or "accusativism"?


Modern standard (since about 1940) has no cases. It seems the German occupation was the disruptive event that brought the modernization of standard grammar with it.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> Modern standard (since about 1940) has no cases.


Does it mean that the difference is only in speech (i.e in Belgium and southern Netherlands nouns derive from the accusative case and retain a three gender system while north of the Meuse nouns derive from the nominative case, with only two genders)?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Does it mean that the difference is only in speech (i.e in Belgium and southern Netherlands nouns derive from the accusative case and retain a three gender system while north of the Meuse nouns derive from the nominative case, with only two genders)?


Sothern colloquial has two cases, nominative and accusative, not four as pre-WWII standard Dutch had.


----------



## Nino83

So does _Tussentaal_ still retains a two-case system?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> So does _Tussentaal_ still retains a two-case system?


As far as I know, it has only the accusative forms but there are some Southern dialects that have retained both. But we should wait for a native speaker to confirm or unconfirm that.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> As far as I know, it has only the accusative forms


Yes, this is what I knew (comment #18), after reading the article on wikipedia: "In these dialects, there was a tendency towards _accusativism_ in early modern Dutch (16th and 17th centuries). This was the tendency to use the accusative case* in the role of* the nominative."
Gender in Dutch grammar - Wikipedia
Let's wait for a native speaker (@Red Arrow :D @Peterdg ?) to confirm.


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> And the "common" (Dutch and Flemish) standard Dutch grammar is based on "nominativism" or "accusativism"?


Nominativism! 


berndf said:


> Sothern colloquial has two cases, nominative and accusative, not four as pre-WWII standard Dutch had.


Southern colloquial speech has got only *one* case. For most people that's accusative, but for those who didn't grew up with a local dialect, it's nominative.


Nino83 said:


> So does _Tussentaal_ still retains a two-case system?


There is no two-case system!


Nino83 said:


> Yes, this is what I knew (comment #18), after reading the article on wikipedia: "In these dialects, there was a tendency towards _accusativism_ in early modern Dutch (16th and 17th centuries). This was the tendency to use the accusative case* in the role of* the nominative."
> Gender in Dutch grammar - Wikipedia
> Let's wait for a native speaker (@Red Arrow :D @Peterdg ?) to confirm.


Yes, exactly!
*
Standard Dutch in the Netherlands*
een auto, onze auto
een man, uw man
een lieve vrouw, onze lieve vrouw
een boekje, ons boekje
Er staat een koe in de wei. Zij is gemolken.

*Standard Dutch in Belgium*
een auto, onze auto
een man, uw man
een lieve vrouw, onze lieve vrouw
een boekje, ons boekje
Er staat een koe in de wei. Zij is gemolken.

*Colloquial speech in Northern speech (apparantly)*
een auto, onze auto
een man, uw man
een lieve vrouw, onze lieve vrouw
een boekje, ons boekje
Er staat een koe in de wei. *Hij* is gemolken.

*Colloquial speech in Southern speech (in dialects as well as Tussentaal)
nen* auto, *onzen *auto
*ne* man,* uwe* man
een lieve vrouw, onze lieve vrouw
*e* boek*ske*, *ons* boek*ske*
Er staat een koe in de wei. Zij is gemolken.

*Flemish Tussentaal spoken by those who didn't grow up with any proper dialect*
een auto, onze auto
een man, uw man
een lieve vrouw, onze lieve vrouw
een boek*ske*, ons boek*ske*
Er staat een koe in de wei. Zij is gemolken.


----------



## Red Arrow

As for Tussentaal: there are no rules written in stone. There are lots of people who grew up with accusativism, but drop it while speaking 'tussentaal'.

Please notice that 'tussentaal' is a rather denigrating term mostly used by people who _don't_ speak tussentaal.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, Red Arrow!
Finally I understood the difference between Flemish and standard Dutch!
Now I've aquestion. How can northern Dutch speakers know when a noun is masculine or feminine? Do they have to learn it by heart? Can standard Dutch keep this difference for a long time in the future? (I'm speaking about the difference between "nij" and "zij" in your example)


Red Arrow :D said:


> Please notice that 'tussentaal' is a rather denigrating term mostly used by people who _don't_ speak tussentaal.


I didn't know that.
How do you (Flemish speakers) call your native language/dialect?


berndf said:


> Like in Low German, the only remaining distinction between masculine and feminine is in the accusative case.


Is there any change in Low German dialects? Is there any tendency towards nominativism or accusativism and, consequently, a tendency towards a merger of masculine and feminine grammatical genders?


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> Can standard Dutch keep this difference for a long time in the future? (I'm speaking about the difference between "nij" and "zij" in your example)


Nope 


> I didn't know that.
> How do you (Flemish speakers) call your native language/dialect?


Anything is possible: West-Vlaams, Vlaams, Nederlands, Limburgs, Antwerps, Brussels. ('Vlaams' is also used a lot in Flemish Brabant and Antwerp, but that's actually wrong. 'Vlaams' is the dialect group of West-Flanders and East-Flanders)

I always say 'Nederlands'. When I'm with my family, I speak Standard Dutch, but with fewer diphtongues and the use of gij/ge. Yep, that's tussentaal indeed, but my colloquial languange not being 'Standard Dutch' doesn't make it any less Dutch IMO.


----------



## Nino83

Ahah, got it. 
So Standard Dutch will probably become more similar to Swedish, Danish and Bokmål, with a full merger between masculine and feminine genders.


Red Arrow :D said:


> ('Vlaams' is also used a lot in Flemish Brabant and Antwerp, but that's actually wrong. 'Vlaams' is the dialect group of West-Flanders and East-Flanders)
> I always say 'Nederlands'.


How about "Brabants"? Maybe West and East Flanders could feel excluded. Maybe "Nederlands" is the best (most inclusive) term.


----------



## Red Arrow

Nino83 said:


> How about "Brabants"?


That's what people say outside Flemish-Brabant when they're talking about our accent. For some reason many Brabantians think they're accentless ('proper Flemish' ) so the word 'Brabants' is barely used inside Flemish Brabant when talking about dialects. I live in Leuven and everyone here says 'Nederlands', 'Vlaams' or 'Leuvens'.

'Brabants' is also used by linguists for all dialects in Northern Brabant (=part of the Netherlands), Antwerp and Flemish Brabant.


> Maybe "Nederlands" is the best (most inclusive) term.


Agreed!


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Is there any change in Low German dialects? Is there any tendency towards nominativism or accusativism ...


In German Low German the two case system (nominative / objective) is stable. About Dutch Low German I can't say anything.



Nino83 said:


> ... and, consequently, a tendency towards a merger of masculine and feminine grammatical genders?


Only nominativism would have such a consequence. Accusativism.of course wouldn't produce the merger.


----------

