Does grammatical gender add anything of worth to modern languages? Seems a tad bit unnecessary to me desu

Does grammatical gender add anything of worth to modern languages? Seems a tad bit unnecessary to me desu

Attached: 1530977181158.png (700x525, 719K)

You can be pretty sure that it’s more fun otherwise children wouldn’t bother.

it's also more soulful

That’s not two different things.

It's only useful in the 3rd person pronoun

Do English speakers realize that you only don't use genders nowadays because you language got raped? Old English had not 2 but 3 genders just like German.

>because you language got raped?
lol how do you think language change happens?
We didn't lose it because it got """"raped"""" we lost it just because people just merged all the genders together when speaking. Just like how Dutch recently merged masc and fem into common

>With the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the now norsified Old English language was subject to contact with the Old Norman language, a Romance language closely related to Modern French. The Norman language in England eventually developed into Anglo-Norman. Because Norman was spoken primarily by the elites and nobles, while the lower classes continued speaking Anglo-Saxon, the influence of Norman consisted of introducing a wide range of loanwords related to politics, legislation and prestigious social domains.[40] Middle English also greatly simplified the inflectional system, probably in order to reconcile Old Norse and Old English, which were inflectionally different but morphologically similar. The distinction between nominative and accusative case was lost except in personal pronouns, the instrumental case was dropped, and the use of the genitive case was limited to describing possession. The inflectional system regularised many irregular inflectional forms,[41] and gradually simplified the system of agreement, making word order less flexible.[42]

>Languages with gender distinction generally have fewer cases of ambiguity concerning, for example, pronominal reference. In the English phrase "a flowerbed in the garden which I maintain" only context tells us whether the relative clause (which I maintain) refers to the whole garden or just the flowerbed. In German, gender distinction prevents such ambiguity. The word for "(flower) bed" (Beet) is neuter, whereas that for "garden" (Garten) is masculine. Hence, if a neuter relative pronoun is used, the relative clause refers to "bed", and if a masculine pronoun is used, the relative clause refers to "garden". Because of this, languages with gender distinction can often use pronouns where in English a noun would have to be repeated in order to avoid confusion. It does not, however, help in cases where the words are of the same grammatical gender. (There are often several synonymous nouns of different grammatical gender to pick from to avoid this, however.)

None of the cultures that cucked inguhland used no gender.
The English are practical, look at their toilets compared fucking German and French ones.
The English intentionally simplified their language while retaining a rich vocabulary, which is pretty based desu. There also is no weird government regulation on the language that determines what is proper and improper English, so we don't get some pretentious cunts in London saying we have to keep using Thou or something.
I only know French besides English, but the French unironically get defensive when you suggest their language isn't as practical and succinct.
"Well we speak a noble langue, we 'ave no désire to dilute, so 30% more syllables is not grave, non ?"
Off the top of my head: dogwalker (3 syllables) vs promeneur de chien (5 syllabes)
Literally "walker of dog". The 'of' serves no purpose at all. The context that the walker walks the dog can be kept by combining the two into one word, either with or without a hyphen.
I've noticed speakers of other languages (especially romance languages) have to speak much faster in order to convey the same amount of information in the same amount of time. Meanwhile, in English, we don't have all these useless words in our grammar that we have to speed through.
Also fun fact to English monolinguals: English is rather unique because words that are verbs can also be used as nouns. We can also create new verbs out of nouns.
2 examples. First, the word vacation is both a noun and the main conjugation of the verb "to vacation." "To go on vacation" and the word vacation itself are usually different words in other languages, if you get what I'm trying to say.
Also, if you have a clumsy friend named Ron that trips a lot, we can use Ron in place of trip. "My pants are dirty because I ron'd while walking in the mud earlier."

>None of the cultures that cucked inguhland used no gender.
>The argument in favour of calling Middle English a creole comes from the extreme reduction in inflected forms from Old English to Middle English. The system of declension of nouns was radically simplified and analogized. The verb system also lost many old patterns of conjugation. Many strong verbs were reanalysed as weak verbs. The subjunctive mood became much less distinct. Syntax was also simplified somewhat, with word order patterns becoming more rigid. These grammatical simplifications resemble those observed in pidgins, creoles and other contact languages, which arise when speakers of different languages need to communicate. Such contact languages usually lack the inflections of either parent language, or drastically simplify them.

According to some linguists, there are five grammatical genders in Russian.

>simplicified

Isn't orthography very complicated in English?

Aren't Dutch and Afrikaans similiar to English?

Its impossible to remove it

Attached: hoho.jpg (480x360, 9K)

and this proves what exactly?
Languages can't get raped you retard.

>The distinction between nominative and accusative case was lost except in personal pronouns
Yep, this has a tendency to occur in languages that have complicated inflectional systems. You should know because you speak such a language yourself.
As for the instrumental case, that was already on its way out in Old English. By the time the Normans invaded it was probably already gone.
None of these grammatical simplification are unusual, or could not have occurred without external influence

Male
Female
Neutral
General
Double-able

Most lingusts think that only three genders exists in Russian.

But, the femitives problem (učiteljnica except učitelj, for example, both mean "teacher") shows that Russian actually can have more than three genders.

There are many personal pronouns in Japan.

Without genders, you get a situation like in English where a lot of nuance is lost and you have to make a sentence overtly complicated to express the same information.

Few credible linguists credit the créole theory. It's at the same level as Bigfoot or the Ancient Astronaut theory
That's due to lack of a regulatory institution. It's hard to get people to relearn so much with no direct incentive.

Just admit that English got cucked and stop the damage control. I can look at old PT that someone wrote in the 1200s and it's almost the same language

No

Creoles come from pidgins, which generally arise when one group holds precedence over another (usually linguistically diverse) group, and when there is limited contact between the group using that language and speakers of the "prestige" language. In the case of English, there was no need for a pidgin as the noble class was relatively small and the majority of the population had no need to communicate with them for the most part.
On top of this there was also a constant stream of linguistic influence from France. So "lack of connection" is not fulfilled either.

Without genders we could not make funny jokes like saying "das" Merkel (implies she is not female)

see

>I can look at old PT that someone wrote in the 1200s and it's almost the same language
An Icelandic person may be able to read an Old Norse text from 1300 or whatever, yet a Swede would find little meaning in it without former study. Both are from the same original language.