Print

Print


Even in English we have the compound _widowwoman_. It doesn't seem too much
of a stretch to think that Britainese might have "un fem veuv", "un om
veuv", where ambiguity might otherwise result.

And

On 20 Feb 2018 13:57, "Raymond Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 20/02/2018 11:39, Pete Bleackley wrote:
>
>> Also, a woman's social role was defined by her marital status to a much
>> greater extent than a man's was. A woman who had lost her husband was far
>> more defined by the fact (in Roman and mediaeval eyes) than a man who had
>> lost his wife was. Indeed, I believe that
>> it was usual for a widower to remarry as quickly as possible.
>>
>> I wonder if the emergence of "widower" in the 14th century might
>> have been something to do with the plague. More bereaved men and
>> less opportunity for them to remarry.
>>
>>
> Interesting idea.
>
> On 19/02/2018 18:28, Alex Fink wrote:> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:10:37
> -0500, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>[snip]
>
>>
>> A few more minutes' thought and I realise: nouns without article are
>> probably going to be fairly atypical in Britainese.
>>
>
> Possibly, tho not as atypical as French, I would think. I doubt whether
> Britainese will use partitive articles.
>
> If all the usual articles still have distinct masculine and feminine
>> forms, then that mostly erases the motivation for recharacterising the noun
>> itself for gender.
>>
>> Certainly demonstatives, possessive adjectives (my, thy etc), and the
> definite article will have distincr masc. & fem. forms. The indefinite
> article is usually identical with the number "one" in Romance langs, and
> that is likely to be _un_ /in/ for both genders.
>
> Ray
>