Thoughts at 4 a.m.

[oloriel]

I have a tag that reads "the mad linguist strikes again", and last night was a brilliant example for why I occasionally call myself a mad linguist.

So I woke up at shortly after 4 a.m., not because Felix woke me but because I was really thirsty, so I drank some water and tried to fall asleep again. Now, you probably all know the experience when you just can't fall asleep because your mind is busy doing other things? That happened to me. Except my mind didn't circle around the things normal people's minds take refuge to - I dunno, shopping lists or urgent current problems or that sort of thing - but about Latin words that look (grammatically) feminine, but are, in fact, masculine, such as agricola ("farmer") or pirata ("pirate", NO WAI) or scriba ("scribe", ENGLISH YOU ARE A THIEF).

How's that for a no-brainer?

See, when we came across such words in Latin class, enquiring minds (like yours truly) wanted to know how come these words are so weird? I mean, why would "pirate" of all things come in such deceptively feminine shape, that's after all a pretty masculine concept, no?
The reply of both Latin teachers I had in the six years I learned the damn language always was "Nobody knows, that's just the way it is, just memorise it and shut up" [paraphrased].
I always found that frustrating, but what can you do if even your teachers don't know the answer?

(These days, I am suspecting that these words are, in fact, loanwords that happen to look feminine in Latin because their original form was consistently turned into an -a ending in Latin, never mind grammatical gender. Not that I've managed to find a Romanist to confirm my theory, but it's a start, and even if it's wrong, it still sounds better than "nobody knows, just damn learn it", right?)

Anyway. From that delightful line of thought, my mind promptly went on to consider generically masculine nouns.

Of course, English is a horrible language in which to think about this, as (modern) English has hardly any grammatical gender left in the first place. I mean, most nouns - even terms for professions nouns, were specific feminine and masculine forms might be useful - come only in one generic form, and you can then guess whether it's a man or a woman doing the job. Unless there's a name or a pronoun or some other helpful context attached, your guess will probably heavily depend on your own bias. If you hear "nurse", you'll probably think of a woman (in fact, "nurse" is one of the rare cases that might count as generically feminine -- if I mean to talk about a male nurse, I'll probably specify "male nurse"). If you hear "blacksmith", you'll probably imagine a man. If you hear teacher, your idea might depend on whether you hear the subject this teacher teaches; perhaps during your school years, all history teachers you encountered were male, so you'll interpret "history teacher" as masculine. I'll go out on a limb and assume that, in English as in German, "science teacher" is more likely to be interpreted as masculine, and you might likely expect a "literature teacher" to be female. If I talked about "my cousin, who is a math teacher", you will not automatically know whether said cousin is male or female. In English, that is. You might lean towards "male" as maths are often considered to be a dude thing, but you can't tell from the sentence as such. (In German, you could, because "cousin" comes in two shapes - Kusine (f) and Cousin (m), or Base (f) and Vetter (m), and so does "teacher" - Lehrerin (f) and Lehrer (m). (Most German professional terms turn feminine when you add an -in.) Heck, even the relative pronoun would give me away, because in German, there are three variants of (singular) "the" - der (m), die (f) and das (n). I would have to say meine Kusine, die Mathelehrerin ("my cousin^[f] the^[f] math teacher^[f]) or mein Cousin, der Mathelehrer ("my cousin^[m] the ^[m] math teacher^[m]") and you'd clearly know whether I'm talking about my cousin Sandra or my cousin Stephan. (As it happens, I'm talking about Sandra.)

Anyway.

So German differentiates between female and male people who do a job (as does French for the most part).

But very often, that only works in the singular.

See, technically, there are separate forms for the plural as well. (Except for the forms of "the", which all - masculine, feminine or neutral - turn into die in the plural. As die is also the singular feminine, maybe this is actually a weird case of generic feminine? Hmmm.) So where the English says "teachers" for a group of, well, teachers, German clearly differentiates between Lehrerinnen for Ms. Doe, Ms. Brown and Ms. Miller and Lehrer (looks like the masculine singular, but can also be masculine plural - then the relative pronoun changes from der to die. ISN'T GERMAN FUN.) for Mr. Smith, Mr. Snyder and Mr. McAllister. The same goes for students: Jane, Liz and Kate are Schülerinnen, and John, Tom and Paul are Schüler (again, looks the same as the masculine singular, but would appear with die instead of der).
So that's all fine and dandy until you either get a coëducational group.
In modern German, you'd probably try to be egalitarian, talking about (or writing) Lehrerinnen und Lehrer ("female and male teachers", or maybe "she- and he-teachers"?) or SchülerInnen ("FeMale students" or "s/he-students"). But this kind of disjunction really is pretty recent, and until maybe 30, 40 years back, you would simply have used the generic masculine form. That is, if Ms. Doe, Ms. Brown, Ms. Miller (or, in those days, Mrs. Doe, Miss. Brown and Miss Miller?) and Mr. Smith are in the same classroom, you'd have said "In dieser Klasse sind nur Lehrer" ("This classroom is full of teachers^[m] [and no students]"). Even if the female teachers are, in fact, the majority. You'd probably still say that today unless you wanted to show that you're a feminist or egalitarian at the least.

The same works for French - three institutrices, one instituteur, the whole group gets labeled as des instituteurs. Well, they probably do disjunction as well, these days. But you don't strictly - that is, grammatically - have to. Same in Latin - three (or fifteen, or a hundred for that matter) magistrae, one measly lone magister, the entire group turns into magistri), and, presumably, modern Italian or Spanish or what-have-you. I found that terribly unfair, back in school, and my French teacher^[f] used to say "Yes, it really is unfair, but at least it's easy to remember and you don't have to do any maths first". Fair enough, I guess.

(If you now stumbled across the idea of three, or fifteen, or a hundred female teachers in the Ancient Roman world, congratulations. You're historically sexist. :P)

[Note to self: If you ever try creating a language again, it is going to have four plural forms - masculine, feminine, neutral and coëducational. Possibly eight - exclusive and inclusive. And, of course, the same number of dual forms. AND THAT ALSO GOES FOR THE BLOODY RELATIVE PRONOUNS.]

Now as I said, these days you might try to solve that problem by using disjunction, just as an English speaker might try to be egalitarian by saying "The teacher may decide at his/her discretion" or something along those lines. But this is modern, modern thinking. This wasn't consistently attempted until a couple of decades back (although of course you can always find someone here or there trying to be egalitarian earlier on).

By now it was probably 4:45, and my mind turned towards a really neat article I read on - of all places - a friend^[f]'s Tumblr - yes, some people apparently manage to have clever and insightful discussions on Tumblr, well I never. There you go.
[My underfed history geek now wants to add that in fact, even among the upper class and nobility, we tend to underestimate the importance of the roles women played, at least in England, but that's another ramble for another time. Actually, why don't you just go and read Eileen Powers' Medieval Women to get started, it's a sweet little book of just a couple 100 pages.]
And, in my insomniac musings, I thought "But it wasn't just the Victorians [and non-British Empire contemporaries] dicking with history. It's the damn language itself!".
Because thanks to the generically masculine plural, you'd look at words and not know whether they really describe a group of men only, or a mixed group of men and women.

Let me repeat that (it felt like a revelation^[f] last night at 5 am or whatever):

A masculine-looking plural might actually be including a couple of women. YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT. And because so many people stupidly assume that society has always been the way it's been the past 200 OR LESS years, you'll look at "carpenters" and "brewers" and "peasants" and think of dudes.
(Actually, "brewer" is one of the rare English words that does have a specific feminine form - brewster. I don't know about carpentresses - though the word probably existed. Webster (feminine form of "weaver") and spinster (feminine form of spinner, are you detecting a pattern?) are some more, but I guess the latter two are jobs we're comfortable assigning to women, historical or otherwise, anyway).
Thanks to Eileen Power, I learned - I didn't know this before either - that actually there were female apprentices - and craftswomen, listed on guild rolls of Medieval London, even for crafts we (inclusive we, "modern-people-ignorantly-looking-back" we) consider masculine, like blacksmithing. If you expend just a tiny bit of brainpower, that makes sense. You don't just lock up half (or more, very likely) the potential workforce in the kitchen. If you're a blacksmith or a carpenter and you've got three daughters, one of them will needs must take over the family business (or marry a guy who can do it). So she becomes a blacksmith's or carpenter's apprentice^[f], which will profitably teach her the trade she's going to work in anyway, as her father's or husband's assistant^[f] or as a craftsmistress in her own right. (The latter presumably only happens if her father dies and leaves her the family business even though she's unmarried, or if she inherits her husband's business as a widow: but it did happen. There are women listed in their own right in guild documents, running their own workshops and teaching their own apprentices (of either sex). That's Truth In Televion in - of all films - A Knight's Tale, ladies and gentlemen. Oh look, there's one disjunction that's actually got tradition! :D - And for every woman listed, there are presumably dozens of wives and daughters and sisters who are not listed because their husband or father or big brother owned the workshop.)
So today, we look at "blacksmiths" and "carpenters", and even "weavers", and imagine a world full of men. But there are Janets and Annes and Kates among the Johns and Pauls and Peters, and just because you can't see them in the grammar, that doesn't make them less real or "historically incorrect".
:D
Not that they didn't have it hard, no doubt, probably harder than their male counterparts, were underpaid, etc. BUT THEY EXISTED.

[Of course, I am now tempted to write a world in which scribes and pirates and farmers are actually typically female, just for the heck of it...]

And eventually I finally fell asleep again. Phew.

[Here's a link to the post that seems to have sparked the Tumblr discussion above: Historically Authentic Sexism in Fantasy. Let’s Unpack That by Tansy Rayner Roberts.

And here's another great article, responding to the blog post by Tansy Rayner Robers: PSA: Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical by Foz Meadows.]

There was more, but I'm afraid most of you stopped reading long ago anyway, so I'll just stop rambling now. Maybe some other times when I can catch you at unawares again. ;)

Comments

[elfy.livejournal.com]

It was fun reading all that, even if I have to admit I kinda felt like "du'h, yes!", as in ... (ah, I don't want to sound elitist, I'm sorry if I do) that is one of those things I talk to people since ... a while now (what it means for the general perception/gender construction if "male" is the generic form (in german)(with a few exceptions like Krankenschwester)). And exactly about that topic I actually posted a link (http://generischesfemininum.wordpress.com/) some days ago ;) Well about that in german, not english, mind you. About the "InWoche" and the corresponding video (http://youtu.be/vOMlvVgPKaM) about the generic masculinum and if/how it's sexist or not.

Talk more about the topic if you like, I don't mind :D

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I meant to mention the InWoche above. *facepalms* I'll probably edit that post a couple of times, anyway...

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and little of this is new, but it kept me awake at night, so I had to get it out of the system. ^^

[cowboy-r.livejournal.com]

I have occasionally made people laugh by describing myself as a Krankenbrueder. They know what I mean, and always correct me... but you know, I can't remember the correct word for a nurse who happens to be male, in German, and I always remember Krankenbrueder?

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

It's Krankenpfleger. But when I was a lot younger and encountered my first male nurse, I called him a "Krankenbruder" as well, to everybody's amusement :D

[fusselbiene.livejournal.com]

As the ending -er in German usually signalizes that we're talking about the [generic] male form of a profession, I still vote for "Krankenschwesterer". xD

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Ow. XD

[shadowbrides.livejournal.com]

Oh my god, I had that exact same discussion in Latin class! And got the exact same answer! And asked the exact same questions! This is so weird, because I still don't know and raising those questions is basically a lot like resurrecting my 15 year old self hahaha.

I also complained about the unfairness of French and German group pronouns in high school hgeeee. Dutch doesn't really have them anymore. You can still use the gendered pronouns but it is hardly necessary and generally not done in, say, official documents. For example, we don't even use the equivalent of "nurse" (verpleeg(st)er) anymore, because it sounded unprofessional and is always gendered - adding the (st) would make it a female nurse. It is now "verpleegkundigen" which just means "a nursing professional" and comes without any gender attached. If you are talking about a large group of people and the word you need to use is gendered, you'll generally go with whichever the gender there are more of or a "ladies and gentlemen" variant. Other words that I suppose would have been exclusively male have simply become the default for both genders. There are still words with gender attatched, obviously. And I don't think it's really about being progressive but the general sloppiness of the Dutch language. For example we used to have de/der etc too, but those are hardly, if ever used now.

And I can't believe I've never thought about the male/female groups thing! I would blame my native language no longer having that kind of rule (or maybe it does but no one uses it anymore), but it's simply stupid, honestly. Excuse me while I have a moment of enlightenment.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Other words that I suppose would have been exclusively male have simply become the default for both genders.

So it's basically a generic masculine singular?
Mind you, you can find this in German as well, especially in job advertisements, where they will ask for a Buchhalter (m/f) rather than a Buchhalter/in.

And then there are collective nouns that really are sex-neutral, like Pflegepersonal ("the collective body of nurses of either sex"), sometimes even in their singular appeareance, like Lehrkraft (fancy for "teacher", but without the gendered -er ending)...

It's cool that Dutch does (or did) that "femimine form by introducing -st-, because that's clearly what English did with brewster and webster. Yay language connection! :D

If you are talking about a large group of people and the word you need to use is gendered, you'll generally go with whichever the gender there are more of

Well, that makes sense, at least!

[shadowbrides.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suppose that is it. But often enough it really doesn't imply gender anymore. There are some words that do have obvious gender attached, like "brandweerman" = "fire fighter". I suppose a female fire fighter would be called a brandweervrouw, but I've never met any and so don't even know! It could very well be they are called brandweerman as well. Obviously, the feminine form is also still used. It's just hardly obligatory. There are definitely words that almost always have gender attached, though. When talking about farmers, it's always boer or boerin (the in also being a way to make something female. The most commonly used feminine endings are, I think, in, e, st and es. Example; leraar/lerares = teacher, although I've heard female teachers referred to as leraar as well. And we have our own version of Lehrkraft! Leerkracht! There is also the gender neutral "onderwijsgevende" (literary "giver of teachings"). What is actually used also differs on a local level. The main difference between it and Germand and French (aside from the group thing) is that you don't hear it in the sentence (no die/der/das etc equivalent). I'm pretty sure we did have our own version of all that in the past, but it is no longer in use and most people aren't even aware of it at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Dutch_grammar That should do a better job explaining it than I do!

Yes, I've heard about the very close connection between older versions of English and Dutch. It's pretty cool. Dunno what version of English that would be exactly, but I once read a bit of an old English text that would be mostly unintelligible to native English speakers but make a lot of sense to me as a Dutch native, haha!

- sorry about the zillion edits, my keyboard was acting up!

[nelyo-russandol.livejournal.com]

Spanish is exactly as you describe French and Latin, for obvious reasons. I've asked myself those questions in the past, and my husband teases me about the group gender bias, saying that English is the better language for that reason (we have continuous banter over English vs. Spanish topics).

When I was at university I remember working out the solution of difficult Maths/Physics problems at similar uncivilised times, after having failed to do so during normal hours... ;o)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Well, but English actually has gender bias even in the singular, so it definitely isn't "better" in that sense! ;)

When there's something important on my mind, sure - but this was just random stuff. I mean, it's not like I'm writing a thesis on linguistic gender or anything of the sort!

[sermanya.livejournal.com]

...interesting thought. I think I have to have a look at that book you cited one day :)

In my new work we are two women in my work group - me and the secretary. When she's on the phone, ordering tickets or hotel rooms or whatever for me and some colleagues, she refers to us as "die Herren" - which definitely includes me too. She thinks it's easier and I don't really think about it. Maybe I find it a little bit funny, but that's it. What's more strange, is when I get emails with "Liebe Kollegin und Kollegen" - like pointing out that there's one of those really strange aliens among us who has to be mentioned so that everybody receiving the email will definitely know about it.

Maybe I shouldn't be so annoyed when I get such strange emails because maybe some future historians will thereby find out that in spite of my secretary writing only about "Herren" there ARE acutally female engineers in this work group.


Another interesting memory from my primary school: We didn't only learn about German grammar, but also about our dialect and our teacher told us that there are actually three different forms of the dialect word for "two": "zwoa", "zwaa" and "zwee" (which I personally use rather randomly, but most of the time "zwoa")
He pointed out that the correct grammatical use would be "two females", "two males" and "two of different gender". Apparently I found that interesting enough to remember until today. But I forgot which meant what.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Well, "Liebe Kollegin und Kollegen" does sound odd, but it's only fair. If you were a group of ten women and there was one lonely guy, HE'd probably be offended if everyone addressed your group as "Liebe Kolleginnen" without even mentioning him ;)

He pointed out that the correct grammatical use would be "two females", "two males" and "two of different gender".
Oh, awesome! I wish you still knew which was which. ^^

[(Anonymous)]

I don't like it when someone points out that I am somehting special because I'm female. I'm perfectly happy being called "Student", "Ingenieur", "Techniker", etc. I want to be one among equals and not "this one special ... err ... woman..." I am happy that my Dipl.-Ing. certificate says "Diplomingenieur" and not "Diplomingenieurin" which still wouldn't sound as odd as "Doktorin". They'll call me this in Aachen and I'll try everything to prevent them from doing so. In my surrundings a "Doktor" is somone who studied and wrote a thesis whereas a "Doktorin" is the wife of a doctor. (aaargl)

But this all is my personal thing. I never understood women who insist on being called "Studentin" etc. Why would they want to be differently treated from men?
With this historical aspect it makes at least some sense: In future times everyone will understand that there are indeed women doing this and that, if you write it down everywhere.


...I actually made a mistake in the dialect thing: "zwaa" is Viennese dialect. (I've spent too much time there and I'm mixing it up occasionally) The correct three forms in my (upper austrian) dialect would be "zwo" "zwoa" and "zwee". I believe that "zwoa" is gender-neutral, "zwo" means men and "zwee" women, but I'm not completely sure any more - sorry about that.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I never understood women who insist on being called "Studentin" etc. Why would they want to be differently treated from men?

I don't think they do. Again, if there's ONE male student and FIVE female students and the professor would say, in greeting, "Liebe Studentinnen" or "Meine Damen", I'm pretty sure the one guy would protest. Accordingly, when there is ONE female student and FIVE male students, it's not ok to just say "Liebe Studenten" or "Meine Herren", either.
That's one thing.
The second thing is the "she's like a man" issue -- is it a compliment to say that a woman is like a man? Apparently, many would think so, but damn it, she's a woman and she's like a woman (no matter what her job). Treating "like a man" as a compliment only serves to stress the idea that somehow, being male is superior to being female, which is just nonsense. If a girl acts like a boy these days, many people would approve and encourage her; if a boy acts like a girl, many people would be embarrassed and nervous. Why? Because apparently, even the women don't want to be women...

I've never in my life encountered a "Doktorin". I only know "Frau Doktor". ^^

[fusselbiene.livejournal.com]

I don't think they do. Again, if there's ONE male student and FIVE female students and the professor would say, in greeting, "Liebe Studentinnen" or "Meine Damen", I'm pretty sure the one guy would protest. Accordingly, when there is ONE female student and FIVE male students, it's not ok to just say "Liebe Studenten" or "Meine Herren", either.

Hmmm... For me, the generic masculine differs from the masculine form. Their form is equal, yes. But they still aren't the same for me. To go with your example: For me, personally, making a point to chose any form but the standard to exclude one sex ("Liebe Studentinnen") is more offensive to me than choosing a form that includes both ("Liebe Stundenten") and equals one of them (the male form) without being the same. Does that make sense?

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I see your point, yes. I'm just not sure I believe your interpretation that the generic plural really is its own entity. Technically, it's possible, but I have my doubts.

[fusselbiene.livejournal.com]

I think how one feels about the generic masculine is rather personal, but seeing it as different from an explicitly male form can be illustrated by a few generic feminines we have, e.g. "Ente" (duck). If someone says "There's ducks by the pond", I don't assume that it's a flock of only female ducks. Only if someone says "There's only ducks by the pond, not a simgle drake", I'd assume that "ducks" implies anything but a mixed group in this case. Same goes for "Studenten", in my case.

This is how I perceive the generic forms, linguistically. On this base, I would find it quite silly to start talking about "ducks and drakes" henceforth to make sure everybody gets it that we're talking about a mixed group.
Then again, ducks and drakes don't care about whether the generic feminine name of their species is explicitly or implicitly sexist from a modern perspective, and people do care. Thus, talking about "Studenten and Studentinnen" does have a purpose in my eyes, just that it's more on the social end of the scale than on the linguistical one. (Not that you could seperate those two cleanly, but I hope you get what I mean?)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting point (that I didn't notice before!) that so many collective/generic animal nouns can also be specifically female. A group of Enten might be female-only, or female-and-male-mixed, but presumably not male-only (unless someone can't tell the difference). A flock of Schafe might be female-only or mixed, but if they're male-only, you'd expect Böcke or Widder. Same for horses, cows, deer...
But the only truly neutral form is in fact Schwein. Schweine could really be anything, Ferkel only, Säue only, Eber only, a mix of either or all. Lucky pigs!
- Anyway, not sure what to think about the fact that most human generic forms look masculine, while so many animal generic forms look feminine? I DON'T THINK I LIKE WHAT OUR ANCESTORS DID THERE.

And yes, in the end it purely is a social issue. Which is why ultimately, it probably doesn't matter whether or not linguistically, there are three plural forms as you suggest (masculine, masculine-looking-but-in-fact-generic, and feminine). The thing that matters is what the speakers of the language believe.
Which is why I'm an Ex-Studentin.

[fusselbiene.livejournal.com]

Fuchs, Hund, Rind, Schwein, Pferd... there's plenty more neutrals out there. I've read somewhere that the naming was probably for the gender of a specific species humans benefitted mostly form - be it eggs, milk or edible offspring. It's only a theory, but there are remarkably little exceptions among the generic female animals.

The thing that matters is what the speakers of the language believe.
Which is why I'm an Ex-Studentin.
I couldn't agree more, because of that (or despite that?) I'm an Ex-Student. ;)

[cowboy-r.livejournal.com]

The first female knight in the SCA, Sir Trudy, is a delightful person. I had the honor of getting to know her one night at Estrella war, and she said that she had elected to be Sir Trudy, not Dame Trudy, because her research told her that women in the middle ages used the masculine title for a masculine job when they held it. Your rambling about blacksmiths reminded me of that.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I don't think that Anne the blacksmith would have been "Master Anne" to her apprentices, though! XD

When I was twelve or so, I bought a wooden dagger at a Ren-Faire-like festival and the guy who sold them also offered to solder one's name onto the handle. The boys all got Ritter Tom and the like and the girls all got Ritterfräulein Sabine. But I insisted that I wanted Knappe Christiane (and not Knäppin!)

[naurring.livejournal.com]

Done reading, and by now it's 3 am, so your 4am sleepless rambling serves my sleepless interneting perfectly well. :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/macalla_/]

Im Spätmittelalter war es auch in unserer Gegend üblich, dass Frauen ein Handwerk betrieben haben und in den Gildenbüchern geführt wurden.
Allerdings gibt es DAVOR (soweit ich informiert bin) keine derartigen Belege. Was hätte sein können ist aber - wie immer - offen für Interpretationen.

Wobei ich zugeben muss, dass ich inzwischen gegen das 'aber sie hätte doch ...' oder 'das ist aber logisch, dass ...' relativ allergisch bin. Interpretieren kann (und muss) man des Öfteren. Dann brauche ich aber wenigstens einen Hinweis auf meine Annahme. Wie zum Beispiel "Diese oder jene Tatsache ist FRÜHER schon mal vorgekommen. Ist also zumindest möglich oder sogar wahrscheinlich, dass es sich bis ins 12. Jhd gehalten hat." (Um von meinem konkreten Standpunkt aus zu sprechen)
Aber das heißt nicht, dass man sich einfach irgendwas einfallen lassen kann, nur weil es einem logisch erscheint.

Was allerdings definitiv stimmt ist, dass die Rolle und die Macht der mittelalterlichen Frauen unterschätzt wird. Viele sind halt unter dem Radar geflogen. Ein paar wenige - wie z. B. Eleonore von Aquitanien - hatten genug eigene Macht um sich genau gar nicht um Meinungen kümmern zu müssen.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Irgendwelche Hinweise sind schon sinnvoll, sonst landet man am Ende wieder bei den Aliens ;)
Aber die GIBT es ja dann durch die Einträge in den Gildenbüchern zumindest für spätere Zeitpunkte. Ob man dann glauben möchte, dass es das schon vorher gab, es aber eine Zeit gedauert hat, bis sich das endlich in den Gildenbüchern zeigte, bleibt einem letztlich selbst überlassen, man kann ja schlecht persönlich hinreisen und nachschauen.

Aber eben zu behaupten, dass es das NICHT gab, obwohl es Belege für das Gegenteil gibt, DA bin ich noch viel allergischer drauf.

Unter dem Radar geflogen - oder die Sprache trickst uns wieder aus. Im Englischen kenne ich z.B., dass Frauen als "illiterat" galten. Wir heute denken dann, die waren völlig ungebildet, aber im mittelalterlichen Englisch hieß "illiterat" nur, dass man keinen Unterricht in Latein und Rhetorik hatte. Die Damen konnten also möglicherweise durchaus lesen und schreiben, vermutlich in mehreren Sprachen (Englisch, Normannisch, Flämisch und/oder mehr) - nur Latein konnten sie halt keins (bzw. nur die nötige Phrasen für den Kirchgang).
Das brauchten sie für Verwaltung und Buchhaltung aber auch gar nicht...

[http://users.livejournal.com/macalla_/]

Ich les grade ein Buch über die 'Trotula' (Sammlung von zwei medizinischen Werken über Frauenkrankheiten + ein Werk über Kosmetik - Salerno, 12. Jhd), die ja angeblich von einer Frau stammt.
Dass die Autorin weiblich war, ist zwar sehr zweifelhaft aber interessant ist folgendes:
Viele edle Damen in und um Salerno hatten hochrangige Leibärzte, die die Damen bei gynäkologischen Problemen zwar beraten, sie aber nicht ansehen oder berühren durften.
Daher hat sich wahrscheinlich eine Art 'Nischenärztin' oder Assistentin herausgebildet (vielleicht eine Dienerin oder sogar jemand, der den Arzt nur zu diesem Zweck begleitet hat), die bei solchen gesundheitlichen Problemen dem Leibarzt zur Hand gegangen ist. Wahrscheinlich hatten also viele Frauen dieses Stück Bildung einfach weil sie zum richtigen Zeitpunkt am richtigen Ort waren.

Sowas könnte ich mir bei Handwerkern oder auch generell bei der Bildung auch gut vorstellen. Keine gezielte Ausbildung für die Frauen, wie bei den Männern üblich, aber Wissen und Können, das sich sozusagen umweltbedingt ansammelt. Dazu würde dein Beispiel mit den Töchtern oder Frauen von Handwerkern passen.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Keine gezielte Ausbildung für die Frauen, wie bei den Männern üblich, aber Wissen und Können, das sich sozusagen umweltbedingt ansammelt. Dazu würde dein Beispiel mit den Töchtern oder Frauen von Handwerkern passen.

So wird das angefangen haben. Aber aus London sind wie gesagt auch offiziell Handwerksmeisterinnen und weibliche Lehrlinge bekannt - da wird sicher in den meisten Fällen der normale Ausbildungsweg gegriffen haben. Natürlich kann es nebenher immer noch Frauen gegeben haben, die nie offiziell das Handwerk gelernt haben, es aber eben als Assistentin des Vaters, Bruders oder Ehemannes trotzdem "aufgeschnappt" haben. Aber es sind eben auch Fälle bekannt, bei denen den Mädels ganz offiziell beigebracht wurde, den Hammer zu schwingen.

ETA: Dein Beispiel trifft aber sicherlich genau auf die "Gutsverwalterinnen" zu. Die haben natürlich nicht BWL studiert, sondern eben die Mutter (oder wer eben sonst dafür zuständig war) bei ihrer Arbeit begleitet - auf die Weise haben sie dann gelernt, was sie brauchen würden, wenn sie selbst verheiratet und für ein Anwesen verantwortlich sein würden. Aber die heutige Idee ist ja eher, dass so eine upper-class-Dame eher dämlich (haha) war und sich bestenfalls mit Stickereien auskannte. Dass sie den Haushalt geführt hat und durchaus in Abwesenheit ihres Mannes das Familienoberhaupt war, kommt für viele eher als Überraschung.
- Das gilt, wie gesagt, für's englische HoMi - was Anderes habe ich bislang nicht in der Tiefe studiert.

[fallingtowers.livejournal.com]

Viertelwissen von einer, die in 3 Semestern das Latinum nachholen musste:

Waren die männlichen Nomen mit den -a Endungen nicht einfach Lehnwörter aus dem Griechischen? Oder gilt das bloß für poeta?

Irgendwas ist mir da jedenfalls noch dumpf im Gedächtnis geblieben. ;)

Und Dein Argument über die "Unsichtbarkeit" von historischen Frauen, auch in der Sprache, finde ich höchst interessant. (Nebenbei, ich wünschte, mein Chef würde nicht immer von "Manntagen" im Redaktionsteam reden, wenn es um die Quartalspläne geht. Besagtes Team ist nämlich zu 75% weiblich. :P)

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

HAH! Dann wäre meine Lehnwörter-Theorie ja tatsächlich richtig! \o/

Für pirata würde Griechisch auch passen, bei den anderen wüsste ich es jetzt nicht auswendig. Aber meine Lehrer haben wie gesagt immer einen auf "Weiß man nicht, muss man eben hinnehmen" gemacht. :P

VOR ALLEM in der Sprache, das isses ja! *schluchz*
Für "Manntage" (oder -stunden) gibt es glaube ich tatsächlich noch kein geschlechtsneutrales oder weibliches Wort. Skandal. Frauentage taugt nix, da denkt gleich jede/r an Blut und Tampons. Obwohl... in der Sauna ist ja auch mittwochs (oder wann auch immer) Frauentag. Na, jedenfalls ist der Begriff schon belegt. "Personentag" (oder Personaltag?) sollte allerdings problemlos funktionieren. Und das ganz ohne disjunktive Ausfaltung!

[fallingtowers.livejournal.com]

Nee, sorry, ich habe das gerade nachgeschaut - und die griechischen Lehnwörter sind eine eigene Kategorie, die nicht mit den maskulinen Tätigkeitsbezeichnungen auf -a übereinstimmt. Ich hatte das offenbar verwechselt, weil beides Ausnahmefälle sind, die in der a-Deklination vorkommen. Ich fürchte, Du müsstest da mal einen Altphilogen (bzw. eine -in :D) fragen.

Ich sage auch immer fleißig "Personentage" in den Meetings, aber das macht noch nicht Schule!