Eine Bemerkung zum Genus

Acta Linguistics Lithuanica LIV (2006), 95 - 100 Eine Remarks on Genus Bouumin VykyPi Constitution for the language esky AV CR The present paper deals with the question whether the category substantival of gender of is a grammatical or a lexical category. The following criterion is suggested: if there is at least one declension paradigm ambivalent gender, then this in category lexical; the contrary case is in it is grammatical. Examples are taken from Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian, Old and Modern Czech. In conclusion, the typological implications of such a conception of gender are briefly mentioned. Im Framework of the so-called. Prager Typology poses the Question, ob gender as a grammatical content category and thus as typological or more precisely as for the Description of the typological Dominante einer language should be considered relevant or not. Vladimir Skaliéka, der Founder of the Prague typology, appears in the Nouns dem Genus den to agree on the status of a grammatical category. So distinguishes between er a Declination class and the Genus: ‘Der Ideal state would be if the Genera and Declinations would completely merge with each other. So far, however, no single Indo-European language has advanced.” (Skali¢ka 1979: 136 = 1941: 12) Already friiher had Skali¢ka claims: »In other Falling is a Morphem two-semantic, z. B. Gen. Sgt. vir/i driickt 1. den Genitive, 2. den Singular out.” (Skali¢ka 1935: 15 = 1979: 68) Im Czech postulates Skaliéka (1935: 52f. = 1979: 107f.) for that Adjective three grammatical Seme (Content elements) — Case, Numerus and Genus, fiir das Noun, however, only two — Case and Numbers. Er celebrates however in Brackets Number three with Question mark also for that Noun and an also refers to the Genus der Nouns the in grammatical 95 Bonumit Vykypét Seme in. These certain fluctuations are also expressed in the fact that in a general passage Skali¢ka treats the gender without further ado as a grammatical category (cf. 1935, pp. 33f. = 1979: 87f. ). Ludovit Novak is more explicit in his review of Skali¢ka (1935): »Specifically: in the ending -a in chlap|a only the semites of the genitive and the unified poet are localized, and in Zen|a the semites of the nominative and the unified pot, while the semites of the masculine, respectively. Zensky's sclera is located in the belly of a Zenman. [{Concretely: in the ending -a in chlap|a only the seeds of the genitive and the singular are localized and in Zen|a only the seeds of the nominative and the singular, while the seed of the masculine resp. of the feminine rather in the roots chlapund Zenlocated is. ]“ (Novak 1936: 10) Referring to Skali¢ka and Novak as well as Zaliznjak (1967: 66, 74), Markus Giger (1998: 173, note 1) has therefore recognized the gender as an independent grammatical category only in the case of adjectives, while in the case of nouns he considers it as the lexical part of the word inharent, whereby it is expressed only by the congruence of a determining attribute. This interpretation was then also asserted in our joint article on the typology of Lithuanian and Latvian (Giger-Vykypél 2001: 47). This interpretation is ultimately accepted by the majority. In any case, it can also be found in authors outside the framework of Prague typology. In addition to the already mentioned A. A. Zaliznjak (1967: 62ff.), who considers the gender in Russian nouns as a “class of congruence” (cf. also Corbett 1991: 147ff.), Christian Lehmann (1982: 204) celebrates, for example, in his general treatise on the concept of congruence, the congruence in the gender as an example of that congruence in which the category in question is not explicitly designated at the determined member of the congruence syntagma (i.e. actually at the noun) (especially Kaznelson 1974: 29ff.). Nevertheless, things seem to be a little more complicated. Next, not only individual endings (or more general grammatical signs) are to be reported, which are the,,candidates“ for the expression of the elements of the genre category are (as Greenberg 1978: in the 96 A remark on the genus and 53 after it Heine 1982, 193 Distinction between the ,overten* and dem ,,coverten“ Expression of the Genus make), but you have to the whole Look at paradigms. Das Criterion for the Decision that ob Genus am Noun (at the determined Member of the congruency syntagmas) is explicitly designated, therefore represents the The fact is, ob es in one Language system at least one declination paradigm that does not correspond zu to a particular Member of the Genus category belonged, and not the In fact, ob every Member of the Genus category only one Declination possesses, as the Skali¢ka seems to assume (ahnlich Corbett 1991: 62). Is this Condition fulfilled, i.e. there is in one Language at least one Declination paradigm of Nouns, that several Members of the gender category can express, is that Genus not a grammatical, but a lexical Category of Nouns. Im reversed Case is this Genus as a grammatical Category of Look at zu nouns. An instructive Example dafiir now offers the Comparison between the Lithuanian and the Latvian. Im Lithuanian are the nouns Declination paradigms of the so-called. oand é-strain with regard to the Ambivalent genus (which zu these Nouns belonging to paradigms can congrue with both feminine and masculine attributes). Im Difference to this are the (historically) corresponding Latvian and ae-declination and also the i-declination in the genus distinguished: Diese Although distinction concerns only the Extension of the dative Singular (female -ai, -ei and -ij vs. male -am, -em and -im), but it still exists. So this means that you im Lithuanian no grammatical Genus category at the noun must postulate, while im Latvian with such category zu calculate is, because there is no es here regarding the Genus ambivalentes substantivisches Declinationsparadigma. In Similar way the Russian can be combined with the Czech to compare: Im Russian are the Declination paradigms of the so-called. aand yes-stamme with regard to the Ambivalent genus (they can both Masculinum as well express feminine), while her czech equivalents the in feminine and the masculine declination disintegrate, which although some in Common case have endings, but as Whole are different. It should be noted that the Russian State of those im corresponds to the old Czech, to in which the and yes-vote ebena97 Bonumit VyKypéL if regarding the Genus ambivalent sind. So we can say that es im Russian and im Old Czech im Difference to Modern Czech no grammatical Genus category at the Nouns there are. Diese Affirmation is right now, what the Russian approaches, even with the perceived View Zaliznjaks iiberein. What the an hell Content category of Genus tatsichlich merkwiirdig is, and what linguist probably mainly prevents them from To recognize category as a normal grammatical content category is my In my opinion, however, something else. Es is the The fact that the Nouns not im Genus be declined (or that the traditional Grammatik die Nouns not im Genus declinated...): Ein Noun kann in x Case or Numbers appear (which ggf. also otherwise than by endings are expressed), but has only one es Genus (resp. es it is assumed that only one es Genus hat). Nevertheless, also on opposite indicate a trap, such as the Case of the so-called. morphological Conversion. For example, it can be asserted that es im Latvian in Latvian noun ‘Lette’ gives that im Case, Numerus and Genus can be declined: Nominative Singular Masculinum Latvian, Genitiv Singular Maskulinum latvieSa etc., Nominativ Plural Masculinum latviesi, Genitiv Plural Maskulinum latviesu etc., Nominativ Singular Femininum Latvian, Genitiv Singular Femininum latvietes etc., Nominativ Plural Femininum Latvian, Genitiv Plural Femininum latviesu etc!. Auer this usual Traps of morphological conversion can still be ,,updated“ Trap: can for example So czech se Feminine like a granny ,Grandmother’ or czech Neutra wie koté "Kittens" too ,,masculine“ are declined, which is differently expressive in (strongly) peculiar statements can be observed (fiir Examples from African Languages cf. Heine 1982, 198; allgemein vgl. also Corbett 1991: 67, 181f. ). Most of the time, however, the Members of the Genus category fully or partially syncretized. So gives es im Latin to Maskulinum equus "Horse" also that Femininum equa, but hardly one Neutrum equum, Corbett claims 1 tiber a (1991: 67) corresponding Couple, namely Spanish hijo ‘son’ and hija ‘Daughter’: Here, quite clearly, have two we separate nouns, sharing similar stem but with a different inflections.“ Why this ,,quite clearly“ ist , verrat er jedoch nicht. 98 Eine Remarks on Genus if one of a possible Without update. Similarly, for example, a feminine Form of Latvian Wortes wood ‘Tree’ not easily imaginable. Against this lieRe object, however, that also the in Category of Case and des Nearby number syncretisms occur, and yet these are Categories of the Tradition is recognized. Zum End of this short Considerations are still the typological Implications briefly perceived. If you allow, for example, im Latvian and im New Czech im Difference to Lithuanian and zum Old Czech Genus a grammatical Category of represents nouns, this so means that im Latvian and im Neutschechischen in den Endings of the Noun ein Content element more (Casus, Numerus and Genus) can be cumulated as im Lithuanian and im Old Czech (Case and Numerus), i.e. that this Latvian and the Neutschechische im Comparison with the Lithuanian and the Old Czech this in Point flexioner are. However, this stands im Objection of zu the The fact that in others areas of Declination reversed the Lithuanian and the Old Czech are more flective than that Latvian and the Neutschechische (cf. Skali¢ka 1941, Giger-Vykypél 2001). Ob this Objection only one of the trap represein nts, to whom im Construction and the Development of a Language different types and typological tendencies are hierarchically combined, as the es Prager typology generally assumes, or ob er for the Inaccuracy of the above Perception of Genus category speaks, may now the inclined Readers decide for themselves. LITERACY Corsert, G. G. 1991: Gender. Cambridge etc. : Cambridge University Press. Gicer, M. 1998: K The typological position of Upper Lužic Serbian among the West Slavic languages: the nomenclature system. In: M. Nabélkova, Hrsg., Varia VII. Zbornik zo VII. colloquium of young linguists (Modra-Piesok 3.-5. 12. 1997). Bratislava: Slovenska jazykovednd spoločnosť pri SAV, 172-185. Gicer, M. — VyxypéL, B. 2001: Die Typology of the Lithuanian and Latvian (with a general Ausblick zu den Perspectives of the Prager Typology). Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Brno A 49, 45-86. 99 Bonumit Vykypét GreenserG, J. H. 1978: How does language a acquire gender markers? In: J. H. Greenberg, Hrsg., Universals of Human Language. Volume 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 47-82. Heine, B. 1982: African noun class systems. In: H. Seiler & C. Lehmann, Hrsg., Apprehension. The linguistic Capture of Opposites. 1. Tiibingen: Narr (Language Universals Series, 1/1), 189-216. Kaznetson, S. D. 1974: Language typology and Linguistic thinking. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Language and Society, 5) & Miinchen: Hueber. LeHMaNN, C. 1982: Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In: H. Seiler & F, J. Stachowiak, Hrsg., Apprehension. The linguistic Capture of Counterparts. It. Tiibingen: Narr (Language Universals Series, 1/11), 201-267. Novak, L. 1936: The basic unit of the grammatical system is the a language typology. Sbornik Matica slovenská 14, 3-14. SKALICKA, V. 1935: To the Hungarian Grammar. Prague: Faculty of Philosophy, Charles University. (Facultas Philosophica Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis. Préce z vědeckych tstava, 39.) [Reprint] in Skali¢ka 1979, 59-125.] Skauicxa, V. 1941: Development Czech Declinations. Study typologickd. Prague: The unity of mathematics and a physics. (Studie Pražského lingvistického krouzku, 4.) [Deutsche Translation: Die Development of the Czech Declination. In: Skali¢ka 1979, 126-172.] Skauicxa, V. 1979: Typological Studies. Hrsg. of P. Hartmann. Braunschweig — Wiesbaden: Vieweg. (Schriften zur Linguistik, 11.) Zauiznsak, A. A. [Banusuak, A. A.] 1967: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. MockThree: Hey, hey, hey. Bohumil Vykypél Constitution for the Estonian language AV CR etymological division Vevert 97, CZ-60200 Brno [email protected] 100