# Feminin gender of nominalized words in Indo-European



## terredepomme

In Latin and Romance languages, nominalized words tend to be feminin. For example in French:
-té, -esse, -aison, -tion, etc.
ex) unité, prouesse, déclinaison, munition 
Of course there are some exceptions such as -age: esclavage, élevage, etc. are masculin.
I remarked that in German this seems to be the case as well, i.e.
-heit, -keit, -ung
ex) Freiheit, Herrlichkeit, Übung

Is this a general trait in Indo-European languages?


----------



## kirahvi

What comes to mind are the Slavic endings.

In Slovak -osť: _milosť_ (mercy) _volnosť (_freedom) _radosť_ (joy)
In Czech -ost: _milost_ (mercy) _volnost_ (freedom) _radost_ (joy)
In Polish -ość: _miłość_ (love) _wolność_ (freedom) _radość_ (joy)
In Ukrainian -сть: _рaдість_ (joy) (none other come to mind at the moment, as Ukrainian is escaping me big time right now.)


----------



## Outsider

terredepomme said:


> In Latin and Romance languages, nominalized words tend to be feminin. For example in French:
> -té, -esse, -aison, -tion, etc.
> ex) unité, prouesse, déclinaison, munition


I'm not sure I agree with that. It's a trait of the particular nominalizing _suffixes_ you mention that they produce feminine words. But although those suffixes are indeed very common, perhaps the most common nominalizing suffixes, I would not infer that the general process of nominalization produces feminine words in the Romance languages. As an important counterexample, notice that nominalized infinitives (another standard way to make nouns in the Romance language, akin to the verbal noun in other languages, like the -_ing_ form of English) are masculine:_ le pouvoir_, _le devoir_, etc. Another counterexample are loanwords, which are frequently masculine.


----------



## terredepomme

Good point, it is true that nominalized infinitives are masculin in Romance languages and Neuter in German(and possibly in other Germanic languages). But for some reason I feel that nominalizing infinitives somehow don't fit into the same category as other nominalized words. But you could be right though.

And I can't see the relationship between the nominalization and loanwords. In fact nominalizzed words tend to keep their genders: -tion and -tät words are feminine in German for example. Maybe you could explain it more specifically to me?


----------



## berndf

terredepomme said:


> Good point, *it is true that nominalized infinitives are masculin in Romance languages*  and Neuter in German(and possibly in other Germanic languages). But for  some reason I feel that nominalizing infinitives somehow don't fit into  the same category as other nominalized words. But you could be right  though.


Infinitives and gerunds are neuter in Latin as well. Why shouldn't infinitives be counted? They are the archetype of a verbal noun.


----------



## terredepomme

> They are the archetype of a verbal noun.


I somehow feel that they are a different category. Suffixes like -tion or -té morphologically change a word into a noun, whereas infinitives just add articles to a verb. This is just my feeling and not based on a linguistic analysis though.


----------



## Outsider

terredepomme said:


> And I can't see the relationship between the nominalization and loanwords. In fact nominalizzed words tend to keep their genders: -tion and -tät words are feminine in German for example. Maybe you could explain it more specifically to me?


I was thinking of loanwords that are nouns (as I believe is most often the case). If you look at that other thread, you will see that while loanwords sometimes do keep their original gender, when the original language is familiar enough, it's just as common for the original gender to be neglected if the loanword is somehow more 'exotic'. Looking at what gender native speakers append to 'exotic-looking' loanwords from unfamiliar languages, and with unfamiliar morphology, can give us a clue about the default gender of nouns in a language (assuming one may speak of a default gender).

P.S. To give a few examples (I couldn't think of better ones): _laser_, _kiwi_, _taekwon-do_, Google, Twitter, are all treated as masculine in Portuguese.


----------



## terredepomme

> P.S. To give a few examples (I couldn't think of better ones): _laser_, _kiwi_, _taekwon-do_, Google, Twitter, are all treated as masculine in Portuguese.




Well I fail to see how that's pertinent to the gender of nominalized words, since they are nouns to begin with.


----------



## Outsider

If there is a default gender for nominalized words, then shouldn't it be the same as the default gender for nouns in general?


----------



## terredepomme

> If there is a default gender for nominalized words, then shouldn't it be the same as the default gender for nouns in general?


That's an interesting hypothesis but I never claimed nor implied that.


----------



## Outsider

Right, _I'm_ suggesting that the default gender should be the same in both cases, on the grounds that anything else would be too complicated. 

(Unless, of course, there simply is no general default gender for nominalized words.)


----------



## terredepomme

> on the grounds that anything else would be too complicated.


I'm not a big fan of Ockham's razor, but let's say that your theory is true. I have to say that I'm a bit confused: Then how come nominalization uses both feminine and masculine gender as in French? I thought you were originally claiming that masculine and feminine genders are both used, using infinitives and loanwords as counterexamples, and now you're claiming that they should be the same, doesn't this go against your premise?

Having read your edited post you seem to be saying that if there were a rule of deciding gender at all then it should be uniquely one gender, either masculine and feminine, and since it is not the case, there are probably no rules at all. Well while I understand what you're saying but I think I'm yet to be convinced.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> If there is a default gender for nominalized words, then shouldn't it be the same as the default gender for nouns in general?


Talking of "nominalization" in general is misleading. The question really is about derived abstract nouns, if you look at the examples. The question therefore is if there is a default gender for abstract nouns. Therefore the "default" gender for loan words should be of little relevance.

I can see a certain preference for neuter and feminine for abstracta in Latin but also in Germanic languages where infinitives are neuter as well; the _-ing/-ung_ suffix produces feminine nouns; the_ -hood/-heit/-keit _suffix feminine nouns; the _-dom/-tum_ suffix produces mainly neuter but sometimes masculine nouns (_*das* Altertum / *der* Reichtum_).


----------



## muhahaa

The supposed origin of IE genders is:

Masculine: a singular animate being
Feminine: a collective animate being - I suppose this is because females can be pregnant
Neuter: singular inanimate thing
Neuter "plural" - collective unit of inanimate things. There was no neuter plural in PIE, the collective was used instead, and it required verbs in singular form.

Animate - believed to have a soul and therefore the ability to be active
Inanimate - believed to not have a soul: they have no way to be active

Notice that feminine and neuter plural are both collective derivations (they use the same ending, *-eh2 -> *-a).

Instead of "nominative" and "accusative" cases, there were "active" and "inactive" cases. Only animate nouns could take the active case, which is why neuters don't distinguish between nominative and accusative in many IE languages. He - him, she - her, it - it.

A bird (active) flies.
A man (active) throws a stone (inactive).
The stone (inactive) flies.
A stone (active) throws a man (inactive). - Not possible. A stone cannot be active (unless it is believed to have a soul).

See:

http://stason.org/TULARC/languages/linguistics/28-How-did-genders-and-cases-develop-in-IE.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active–stative_language


----------



## terredepomme

Very interesting information, thank you Muhahaa.


----------



## berndf

muhahaa said:


> Feminine: a collective animate being - I suppose this is because females can be pregnant
> 
> ...
> 
> http://stason.org/TULARC/languages/linguistics/28-How-did-genders-and-cases-develop-in-IE.html


This theory was indeed proposed when the idea of an active/stative origin of the IE gender system was first proposed.

Today it is more or less consensus view that the feminine gender developed out of the collective *in*animate. The source you quoted explains this as well.

I also wouldn't take the labels "animate" and "inanimate" in the context of active/stative languages too literally. In a active/stative context, _capable to act_ (=noun inflected for nominative or accusative) is not the same as what we understand as animate in modern languages which make the distinction, as e.g. English does in using the pronouns _he/she_ vs. _it_. Most primitive cultures we know today are animistic, i.e. they don't have the concept of an object without a soul. Why should the PIEs have been any different?

Concerning your examples with _stone_: You are aware that the word was masculine in Old English and still is in other Germanic languages? The same is true for the Greek words _lithos_ and _petros_.


----------

