Re: Linguistics
From: Efrain Ramirez (eramirezt@coqui.net)
Thu Jun 26 21:16:15 2008
Right.
Ef
At Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Gerald P. Rodríguez wrote:
>
>Ef would probably give a better reason, Ann. But best I can tell the
>anatomic words in Spanish have been assigned either masculine or feminine
>without regard to the gender to which they belong. Thus it's masculine "el
>utero" for uterus, but it's "la prostata" for prostate. And it's "el pie"
>(foot), but it's "la cabeza" (head). Just to throw a curve into the mix,
>it's "la mano" (hand). Then there is, as in English often more than one
>label for a body part, so "matriz" is perfectly understood by Spanish
>speakers as meaning uterus and it's "la matriz," not "el matriz." Perhaps,
>though I speculate, gender assignment flows from the original derivation of
>the word--Latin vs. Greek?
>
>Gerald P. Rodriguez, M.D., FACOG
>Santa Fe
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Meenan, Anna" <annam@uic.edu>
>To: "Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L" <ob-gyn-l@mail.obgyn.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:41 PM
>Subject: Re: Linguistics
>
>> As long as we are on the subject of linguistics, the Spanish language, and
>> masculine vs. feminine nouns: Ef, can you tell me why "el utero" is a
>> masculine noun? It is one of the few things in this world that can NEVER
>> be anything but feminine, and yet it is masculine. That one has always
>> given me pause.
>>
>> Anna Meenan, MD
>>
>>>Que vive el idioma espaÒol.. :)
>>>
>>>Ef
>>>
>>>>At Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Gerald P. RodrÌguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>> °Que viva la idioma EspaÒola!
>>>>
>>>> Gerald P. RodrÌguez, M.D., FACOG
>>>> Santa Fe
>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: R. Daniel Braun
>>>> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:23 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Linguistics
>>>>
>>>> That's all fine and good, but if our congressmen don't get off their
>>>> butts and make English, the OFFICIAL language of the good ole US of A.
>>>> we're all going to be speaking Spanish anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM, <DoctorJoe@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 6/24/08 11:17:01 PM,
>>>> Stephen.Raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au writes:
>>>>
>>>> Horrified as I am, I can't resist asking, why logical?
>>>>
>>>> Well, not to beat a dying horse, but ...
>>>>
>>>> Remember that English (and I'm not sure about other languages)
>>>> became somewhat "formalized" after the invention of the dictionary.
>>>> Before then, words were spelled irregularly, evidenced by any
>>>> reproduction of old books and other printed materials. The dictionary
>>>> was a force which regularized the language and attempted to keep it that
>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> However, with the expansion of the English language (e.g. American
>>>> English, Aussie & Kiwi English, "English" English, Indian English),
>>>> there is a vulgarization of the language in different ways and in
>>>> different areas of the world. In other words, it's not just whether
>>>> you're from London or Liverpool any more. And each country is
>>>> independent of the source of the mother tounge now. In fact, there is
>>>> some sense of pride in speaking differently from the Queen.
>>>>
>>>> So too, in large countries like the US of A, there are large
>>>> regional differences (along with regional allegiences and pride) which
>>>> facilitate the very same phenomenon on a more local scale, perhaps more
>>>> dramatic than the local scale of London versus Liverpool.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, it's logical to think that there would be a relatively
>>>> active movement to formalize such differences ("ask" versus "axe") from
>>>> region to region.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most obvious historical example of the above is the
>>>> Roman Empire. Latin was the official language of Rome and thence of the
>>>> Empire. But after the Empire expanded and then lost control of the
>>>> different regions, the vulgar Latin in each region became characteristic
>>>> unto itself, giving us Italian, French, Spanish, Portugese, Romanian,
>>>> etc. About half way through the Crusades, Europe fell into the inability
>>>> to understand itself. Languages tend to do that, it seems. There's your
>>>> logic.
>>>>
>>>> Joe P.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. An even more interesting subplot of this phenomenon is Italy
>>>> (and Emilio, correct me if I'm wrong). Each major city or center in
>>>> Italy had its own dialect of Latin/Italian, even into relatively recent
>>>> history. (Not to include Sicilian, which is a bit different altogether.)
>>>> However, when Vittorio Emanuele unified the country, he picked
>>>> Florentine as the official language, since Florence/Firenze was the
>>>> relatively well-recognized literary and artistic capital of the country.
>>>> Thus, Italian today is not a subdialect of Latin, it's an artificially
>>>> selected sub-subdialect of Latin.
>>>>
>>>> Ya know -- This stuff is pretty cool!
>>>>
>>>>used cars.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> R. Daniel Braun, MD FACOG(L) ABMP CMTh
>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>> Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology
>>>> Indiana U. School of Medicine
>>>>
>>>> R. Daniel Braun
>>>>
>>>> "Science without Religion is LAME; Religion without Science is BLIND"
>>>> Einstein 1941
>>>
>>>--
>>>"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan
--
"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan
