Author Topic: Rhetorical Gender  (Read 3252 times)

uq

  • Global Moderator
  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Rhetorical Gender
« on: December 10, 2016, 05:09:24 PM »
Peace all,

My thoughts on rhetorical gender:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkotlTY_voT4qgKZ70i1zHEjGxxS

(PDF file)
uq

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11298
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2016, 04:17:21 AM »
peace bro,

I read it. Thanks for the work.

It might be a good idea to include some non-Quran classical Arabic references/examples demonstrating what you wrote, just to further cement your argument.

Or reference some other grammar works/articles which discuss this issue, if people want to research further.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

Aries

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2016, 12:08:43 PM »
Thank you so much for sharing!

 :peace:

uq

  • Global Moderator
  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2016, 07:08:53 PM »
Salam Wakas,

Thanks for the feedback bro!

In the update to the paper, I shall add some non-Quranic examples and I shall also add some page references to the sources I gave in the "References" section, God willing. Hopefully within a few weeks, time permitting.

I was also thinking to expand on the grammar governing gender, but that's only if enough people show interest in the subject.

Salam Virginia,

Thank you for taking the time to read the paper!

:-)
uq

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6501
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2016, 01:17:03 AM »
It is very unfortunate that many people insist that msculine rules over nd turn grammar into a ociologiclturf of the sexes.

It is good, uq, that you have take the trouble of making this the object of a secificic tex. Some people do no seem to be aware or take seriuosly the fact that in fact we use in grammar, and in speech three (at least) gender terms, the fact that two of them have the same form does not detract from the fact that they respond to different things. The form of the masculine is the same as the form to denote the indeterminate person is used to refer exclusively everything that is not marked feminine to males, which obviously is nonsense.

I believe that grammarians say the masculine is the unmarked gender form in the snese that it can be masculine but it also can be something else because it is not marked either as masculine or as something else, that is so in Spanish, where also and unknown person or a person that we do not want to describe or individualise for the purpose the gender used will be the unmarked gender, so that it is open as to the sex of the person or animal. And the same with plurals. As to the form an unmarked plural may consist of males or may consist of females and males. Some other element of the text must be brought to determine the actual composition of the group.

It will be nice if you can add something to the text you have already shared, so that people get a proper idea of what they read or hear.

Salaam
 

Aries

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2016, 07:27:08 AM »


In the update to the paper, I shall add some non-Quranic examples and I shall also add some page references to the sources I gave in the "References" section, God willing. Hopefully within a few weeks, time permitting.

I was also thinking to expand on the grammar governing gender, but that's only if enough people show interest in the subject.

Very pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase  ;D

you could use a section for specific verses traditionally interpreted as only addressed to males.... just to keep up controversy    :angel:

uq

  • Global Moderator
  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2016, 12:02:49 AM »
Peace Huruf,

Are you referring to the neuter gender? If so, I agree with your view.

I mentioned the neuter gender in the paper implicitly, but only in passing.

My contention is that God (be He exalted!) is not a male, despite the fact that masculine verbal forms and pronouns are used in relation to Him.

I shall devote a separate paper to the neuter gender and how it relates to God, God willing.

..................................................

On a separate note, what do you guys think of the numbering format of the paper? And what do you think of the style of language used?

Is the numbering format easy to follow? And is the style of language easy to understand?

I would love for my work to be as accessible as possible, but without compromising neither arrangement nor precision.
uq

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6501
  • Karma +1/-1
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2016, 01:46:15 AM »
Salaam uq,

I was not meaning the neuter gender, although it exists in Spanish it is very peculiar and is not used for persons or things that always have their own gender, masculine or femeinine, I was meaning a category whichyou have placed, it seems to me within the retorical gender, I mean for instance you say:

"somebody told such and such a thing, and he (or she) knew well.

This somebody in Spanish as I think in other gendered languages, remains unprecised as to sex, may be a male may be a female, in Spanish that unknown is expressed through what you call rethorical and Ihave seen grammarians in Spanish called "unmarked" word forms" which would be of the same form as the masculine, although it is obvious, known and acknowledge that the sex remains unknown and could be feminine as well as masculine.

This rethorical sex is clear for people who live in languages which have genders masculine and feminine, but it seems, from what I have seen lately in the forum, that some people seem unable to digest this and they attribute in Arabic undisputbly masculine whatever is not marked as feminine. Which is why your paper is so opportune and appropriate.

There are also people, and here comes what you have said about Allah, that seem to confuse the gramatical gender of words with the sex of living things. I wouldn't know how to take out of some people's head the idea that God is masculine because the word Allah is masculine in grammatical gender. I guess for them it would be in itself a trial as to their commitment and capacity to lear what God is not and that following that line of thinking a Spanish speaking woman could end up easily marrying her toothbrush, and those who speak other gendered languages like Arabic marrying equally shocking partners.

The lay out and other details inyour paper seem to be to be quite readable, but I don't have any trouble with what you explain, so may be the opinion of somebody who would have trouble with them would be more useful.

Regarding the comment in your text:

"The relationship between rhetorical gender and subjunctivity is not, I believe, purely
causative. The preference of the use of masculine pronouns and verbal forms to serve the role
of rhetorical gender probably arises from the perceived societal dominance of masculinity
over femininity; whereas, its extension to females probably arises from its theoretical nature
in allowing the masculine pronouns and verbal forms?within theoretical clauses?to apply to
females also."

I do not think that is the reason for the use of "masculine", which as I have seen grammarians in Spanish called "unmarked form", something which is unknown or which can be of one kind or another, you leave as "unmarked" as possible. For instance, words father and mother", in Spanish the word for parents (which would include father and mother) is the plural of the wordfather, "padre", "padres", padres could be as well the plural of father, and also the plural of father and mother pooled together, and of a couple of father and mother.

I do not think it comes from any masculination of the language, but rather from the basic fact that a mother is a father in a biological sense, that from the point of view of generation, but it is clear that a mother is something more than a father, so the word mother excludes the father, but the word father does not exclude the mothers.

Of course that the mentality influences language is clear, but on the other hand I think that language is precisely one of the realms where the feminine has been harder to suppress, because language is something that is picked very much from women and where women, even if unacknowledged, have always had a lot of input, as born out by the fact that we say "mother language".  On the other hand if the opposite had happened thatthe feminine would have been the rethorical and masculine exclusive, I guess everybody would be fighting like mad to be given the right to be addressed and spoken of in the esclusive language, because. You just have to see word forms in Spanish which are the same for either sex but have a form which is feminine sounding, still the important ones are the males, like futbolista (soccer player) bet it is not women soccer players that are the cream but them, the males, even with those resounding "a"s as if it were marked feminine.

But I guess that is just a question that is interesting in itself but for the gender question and the Qur'an, whatever the causes of this or that, it is a need that everything regarding language gender should be very well understood.

Salaam

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11298
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2016, 01:47:48 AM »
I thought the layout was easy to follow. Language perhaps a tad formal/academic, but those seeking to learn could easily look up anything they were unsure of, e.g. a definition of a word you used. If you wanted it to reach a wider audience you could add clarifying notes, or another simplified article.
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

uq

  • Global Moderator
  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rhetorical Gender
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2017, 09:47:39 PM »
Sorry for the late reply, guys.

Huruf,

Thanks for the feedback.

I wasn't aware that Spanish treated gender in such a manner. I have some knowledge of French, and after reading your comments, I can now understand how gendered Indo-European languages tend to levitate towards the use of the rhetorical gender.

Do you have knowledge of Spanish? Are you fluent? If so, I would like to ask you if Spanish uses rhetorical gender in relation to inanimate objects? Classical Arabic does not use rhetorical gender for inanimate objects, as I pointed out in the paper, instead, it uses masculine pronouns with neuter significations.

Quote
I do not think that is the reason for the use of "masculine", which as I have seen grammarians in Spanish called "unmarked form", something which is unknown or which can be of one kind or another, you leave as "unmarked" as possible.

You could be correct. My proposition regarding the causality of rhetorical gender was purely speculative.

Wakas,

Thanks for the feedback, Wakas!

Your comments are much appreciated. I will bear them in mind for future papers, God willing.

uq