Talk:gendered

doesn't this mean almost the same thing as gender?


 * Yes, but unlike it's not a noun. Equinox ◑ 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A phrase like e. g.,"gendered language" is slangy and imprecise in that the participial morphology of the descriptor implies an agent or agents who "genders" the language rather than organic development. To avoid this, a linguist would prefer the phrases "with grammatical gender" or "marked for gender". I suggest replacing the link to the linguistics entry to that of colloquial. 185.205.225.132 14:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't imply an agent. This is a perfectly normal way to convert something into an adjective in English: if I say a stick is "forked", I'm not implying that someone "forked" it. Also, it's certainly not slangy or colloquial- no one uses this in casual conversation. It apparently arose in other academic disciplines in the 1960s as gender issues became a subject of academic inquiry, and crossed over into linguistics a few decades later in this sense. It may not be the preferred way among linguists to say that a language has grammatical gender, but it's not wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If "gendered" were a standard linguistic taxonomic term we should expect such formations elsewhere, e. g., first- and third-person English pronouns being described as "cased". A linguist, in order to be precise, would describe verbs as "marked for tense" or "marked for aspect", not "tensed" or "aspected" and languages are properly described as having "grammatical tense", not "tensed". "Gendered" is non-standard English. You disagree. But your argument that the word is a standard linguistics term is a non-starter.185.205.225.132 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)