Space Chef

from here.

Is that true?

Chris Weimer

Arabiyya has no neuter gender like IndoEuropean languages (which originally didn't have neutur either!) If you are into languages, email me. I've got a forum dedicated to languages.

Space Chef

Well there goes the whole 'perfect language' idea.

premjan

Sanskrit has a neuter gender (and God impersonal == Brahman) would be neuter (God personal could be male == Brahma).

Chris Weimer

yeah, but Sanskrit is an IndoEuropean language.

Mughal

Not only we have this problem with Arabic but also other languages based on Arabic eg urdu.

This causes problems when learning languages from complex to simple. For example, in english word 'table' is neutral genderwise but in urdu it ie femenine. So when one has to make a sentense, one needs to know whether a noun is feminine or musculine because the verbs and other words that go with it to make the sentense must fitin with it.

It therefore seems to me that languages that have no nouns classified as neuters are more primitive or less developed ie they are more difficult to grasp and use because you need a very good memory to remember genders of lots of nouns.

The problem is also found when we count using numbers. Instead of saying one and ten, two and ten, three-ten, four-ten etc etc we end up with eleven twelve thirteen etc etc. It seems things just developed chaotically. Nobody's fault.

Speaking of Allah, he is all wise and does as he pleases. If one doesn't like what Allah the mighty does, tough luck to him.

Chris Weimer

English used to have genders, back in the day (like way back). It is only a problem for ignorant ignorami who don't know jack about linguistical and phonetical mutations. Not to mention the idiots who don't know semantic repsonsibility and proto-constructionism. Geez!

I_pity_the_fool

Doesn't ignoramus come from "we do not know"? You can't just pluralise words ending in -us willy-nilly.

Anyway, having satisfied the Grammar-Nazi in me, I think that God was quite ill-advised to make his revelations through a language like Arabic or Hebrew. I think that if the language relies on consonants to communicate the meaning of a word, and on vowels to show the function that the word performs in a sentence, then any writing system which fails to provide the vowels really isn't doing its job of communicating the divine word properly. Shows a distinct lack of forethought and planning in my opinion. I realize of course that modern hebrew and arabic often do provide these vowels in the form of markings around the text but I could swear I read that they were invented quite a long time after the texts were first composed. The memory of pre-literate peoples is often quite impressive, especially those that are charged with remembering histories and genealogies and what-not, but I would have thought believers might be more open to the possibility that errors have crept into the texts.

I shall see if I can rustle up a link to a web-page which provides some of the ambiguities this has caused.

As to whether languages that use two rather than three genders are more primitive, I should think not actually. It does, it is true, cut down markedly on learning time if common gender is used and it is more logical, but then simplicity and logic are not the most important criteria if you are evaluating a language. Subtlety and the ability to express degrees of meaning with a wide and varied vocabulary must surely count for more.

What I would like to know is, how does the grammar and vocabulary of Arabic measure up to, say, classical Greek? How can one express the passage of time with verbs? What is the abstract vocabulary like? These have to be the more important questions.

I_pity_the_fool

Doesn't ignoramus come from "we do not know"? You can't just pluralise words ending in -us willy-nilly.

Anyway, having satisfied the Grammar-Nazi in me, I think that God was quite ill-advised to make his revelations through a language like Arabic or Hebrew. I think that if the language relies on consonants to communicate the meaning of a word, and on vowels to show the function that the word performs in a sentence, then any writing system which fails to provide the vowels really isn't doing its job of communicating the divine word properly. Shows a distinct lack of forethought and planning in my opinion. I realize of course that modern hebrew and arabic often do provide these vowels in the form of markings around the text but I could swear I read that they were invented quite a long time after the texts were first composed. The memory of pre-literate peoples is often quite impressive, especially those that are charged with remembering histories and genealogies and what-not, but I would have thought believers might be more open to the possibility that errors have crept into the texts.

I shall see if I can rustle up a link to a web-page which provides some of the ambiguities this has caused.

As to whether languages that use two rather than three genders are more primitive, I should think not actually. It does, it is true, cut down markedly on learning time if common gender is used and it is more logical, but then simplicity and logic are not the most important criteria if you are evaluating a language. Subtlety and the ability to express degrees of meaning with a wide and varied vocabulary must surely count for more.

What I would like to know is, how does the grammar and vocabulary of Arabic measure up to, say, classical Greek? How can one express the passage of time with verbs? What is the abstract vocabulary like? These have to be the more important questions.

Chris Weimer

you're right I pity the fool: it was more of a linguists inner-circle joke, but know that you've let the whole world on, I must kill you.

WARNING EXPOSURE: The misuse of other languages' phrases

hoi polloi NOT the hoi polloi
you stupid ignorator NOT you stupid ignoramus (it's a friggin verb, people!)

Damn, I'm too tired to think of many more. I'm going to bed.