How many problems would we save ourselves now if the "generic masculine" had been called only "generic".
Because by introducing the concept of “masculine” in that phrase, it is perhaps incited to think that a masculine of origin later appropriated the feminine to encompass both and become generic without ceasing to be masculine.
However, it happened the other way around.
The genres were formed in Indo-European, our
grandmother language;
from whose fragmentation for centuries Latin was born -our
mother tongue-,
Greek or Sanskrit, among others.
In that language that was spoken some 5,000 years ago in parts of Europe and Asia, there were two genders: that of animate beings and that of inanimate beings.
In other words, there was a difference between what moved and, therefore, could constitute a threat, like animals, and what was still and cared little.
When livestock societies had already been established —and in an extremely slow process—, from the gender of animated beings, the feminine was born as a branch of its own, perhaps due to the relevance of women and females in the family reproduction of the one and the rancher of the other.
It was not the same to have three cows and a bull than three bulls and a cow.
The visibility of women and females then produced the formation of genders as we use them now.
When the feminine was created from that previous generic, the old initial gender of animated beings (the genuine "generic") unfolded to assume the role of the masculine in those cases in which it was opposed to the new feminine, without abandoning its original function. as generic.
So, why call it “generic masculine” when it encompasses both genders, if there it does not play any signifying role of the masculine?
The same word can perform different grammatical missions.
For example, the word “strong” works as a noun (“she took refuge in the Apache fort”), as an adjective (“she is a strong woman”) or as an adverb (“she pressed him hard”).
That is why if we were to observe "strong" as a mere adjective, we would be making an error.
In the same way that if we observe the generic "children" as a mere masculine.
This confuses many speakers, who put their eyes on the first term (masculine) and the second (generic) is blurred.
Which was the first.
Thus, "children" acts sometimes as a generic and sometimes as a masculine, due to that original split in the Indo-European language that occurred as a consequence of the creation of the feminine, in the same way that "strong" acts sometimes as an adjective, sometimes as an adverb and sometimes as a noun.
Like "hard" it serves as an adjective ("it's hard work"), as an adverb ("here you work hard") or as a noun ("that bike isn't worth a penny").
Polysemy and polyfunction are present throughout the language, and for this reason experts tend to be careful in the definition of words: would they say that “hard” or “strong” are adjectives?
No: they would say it depends.
And just as a grammarian would not explain that "hard" is an "adjective noun", we can also question that one speaks of the "generic masculine".
It sounds strong (adverb): but the masculine does not exist.
We see it, we write it, it agrees;
but he doesn't exist.
There is the generic primitive, yes, unfolded to assume the role of non-feminine.
The masculine is actually a delusion of the senses.
Sign up for the weekly Ideas newsletter
here .
50% off
Exclusive content for subscribers
read without limits
subscribe
I'm already a subscriber
