Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
It's specifically Orcish, which is kind of weird (I would think there would be one Greenskin, or Orc and Goblin tongues)

It's referred to as 'Orcish' by the Empire because they're only exposed to two Greenskin languages and the other is the Forest Goblin language. A better term for it would be 'Old World Greenskin', which differs from the original or 'Savage' Greenskin language mostly from the influence of Chaos Dwarf Khazalid.
 
The way things are structured you simply can't not gender anything you are talking about in german.
Leaving out "Der/Die/Das" would leave a painful gap in any sentence.
In Spanish every noun and pronoun have grammatical gender, and adjectives, adverbs and determinatives change to reflext gender of the word they accompany... And the masculine grammatical gender is used as the default "neutral" gender.

That is why most Spanish speakers absolute loathe the attempts of of some people (mostly Ameicans) who try to impose and popularize up gender neutral "Inclusive" language like "Latinxs"
 
Last edited:
I forgot to reply to this. Here are two examples. The first is from the non-canonical Blood Bowl series, which is a decent enough rendition:
The second is referred to as "Female Maneater", but knowing when this was produced, I have some doubts over their intentions in regards to this depiction:
This model is no longer in production, so I imagine it's a vintage collector's item.
That's Not been the case for a few years.

4e Archives of the Empire II


 
I'll be honest, Grenskins is not the hill I want to die on. It was just one of the many examples off the top of my head over a lack of women in the setting. It's fine to have a group of male-coded characters, although I reserve the right to criticise the depiction thereof, but the problem isn't that Orcs are male-coded. It's the lack of proper representation of women within the setting that I take issue with.

Yeah, it's a very common thing were any single-gendered group is male-designated, unless there exist a specific reason for them to be female instead.
And in the vast majority of cases, that reason is a sex thing.

Otherwise you have to fall back on mythology, and it's handful of half-woman, half-creature monsters, like Harpies and Sphinxes and so on.
Edit : Oh, and the Amazons, shouldn't have forgotten about those...

Yeah, English lost grammatical gender in the transition to Middle English, so around eight hundred years ago.

You also have languages which are still losing their gramatical at this very moment. Dutch for example is halfway through that transition (with it being further along in the Netherlands than in Belgium). Certain forms of grammatical gender exist solely in dialect, other parts of the language have either a 3-gender or a 2-gender system, in some cases the gramatical gender is arbitrary (all dogs are masculine, all cats are feminine, unless we know the animal's gender) and then there's a handful of words whose meaning changes depending on what gender you give them, though those are dying out.
 
Last edited:
Unrelated to current discussion, this particular work of fine art is titled "After Me."

I am very proud of the rainbow. :smile:


Poor Belegar. We've worked so hard to make his life more interesting!

Après moi, le déluge, or why Belegar needs to become a Living Ancestor.
 
I don't speak Arabic, but from what I know that doesn't seem right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arabic adjectives are gendered, aren't they? So in the phrases "tall boy" and "tall girl" the word "tall" is actually two slightly different words in each phrase? If this is the case, objects must have grammatical gender. (if this is not the case then I'm very badly misinformed about Arabic, that's also possible)
Adjectives are gendered because the person is gendered. Duweel and Duweela is when you're referring to a tall boy or a tall girl, but you're only gendering the tall part because it's referring to a person. When you refer to water, it's "Mai" or "Maya" depending on your accent. The water has no gender. The table has no gender. There's a lot of gender specific adjectives, but only when referring to people.

I don't consider adjectives to be an object, so I'm a bit confused about the question.
 
If Duweel is tall (for male) and Duweela is tall (for female) is a tall house Duweel or is it Duweela? Or is there a third non-gendered word for tall that's used for objects?
Duweel. It's always set to male if you're referring to an object, but that's because male is default and female is for when you're referring to a person. If you're referring to a women, you add "a" to the end. Gawee becomes Gaweea, Imlag becomes Imlaga, daeef becomes daeefa. Objects are always "male", but I don't consider them such because that's just the default. There is no female adjective for an object.
 
Duweel. It's always set to male if you're referring to an object, but that's because male is default and female is for when you're referring to a person. If you're referring to a women, you add "a" to the end. Gawee becomes Gaweea, Imlag becomes Imlaga, daeef becomes daeefa. Objects are always "male", but I don't consider them such because that's just the default. There is no female adjective for an object.
That's weird. The explanations I found online agree that some objects, for example tree, desert and library are female (mostly marked by a suffix , but there also seem to be some cryptofeminine words like fire or sun) . I'm not doubting your knowledge of your own language, just curious where the disconnect between my understanding of the explanations I found and your explanation is.
 
Last edited:
That's weird. The explanations I found online agree that some objects, for example tree, desert and library are female (mostly marked by a suffix , but there also seem to be some cryptofeminine words like fire or sun) . I'm not doubting your knowledge of your own language, just curious where the disconnect between my understanding of the explanations I found and your explanation is.
Different dialects?
 
That's weird. The explanations I found online agree that some objects, for example tree, desert and library are female (mostly marked by a suffix , but there also seem to be some cryptofeminine words like fire or sun) . I'm not doubting your knowledge of your own language, just curious where the disconnect between my understanding and your explanation is.
I suppose if you count every word with ة feminine you can count a lot of words as feminine, but they are baked into the word itself. Sahara, Shajara, Maktaba. They all have a at the end. This doesn't really register as gendering, that's just what the word sounds like. If you refer to a plural of trees, then it's Shajar, which is no longer "gendered". If you remove the a from Maktaba, it becomes Maktab, which means office. If you remove the a from Sahara, it loses its meaning. It's part of the word, not some article you insert and remove from words as you please.
 
I suppose if you count every word with ة feminine you can count a lot of words as feminine, but they are baked into the word itself. Sahara, Shajara, Maktaba. They all have a at the end. This doesn't really register as gendering, that's just what the word sounds like. If you refer to a plural of trees, then it's Shajar, which is no longer "gendered". If you remove the a from Maktaba, it becomes Maktab, which means office. If you remove the a from Sahara, it loses its meaning. It's part of the word, not some article you insert and remove from words as you please.
Yeah, that is indeed all grammatical gendering. Sounds like you're expecting grammatical gendering to have more meaning baked into it than is actually the case, in most languages it's ~70% arbitrary noun groupings more than anything else.
 
I mean, that's not that different to European languages? Whether "tree" is technically grammatically masculine doesn't actually matter. You don't think about it, it's just something to annoy people trying to learn the language :V. Some languages also have clear endings denoting a word's gender, and taking them off would make those words sound like nonsense. The fact that it doesn't actually matter is the reason genders have faded from some languages.
 
Huh, apparently we do have grammatical gender, it's just really obscure shit that no one speaking Arabic even thinks about. This is really arbitrary huh. It doesn't even matter if I remember correctly.
 
I suppose grammatical gender is like how English's spelling is so wildly inconsistent that you have to memorize how to spell a word along with its sound and meaning. You don't have to remember that rain is male, but you do have to remember that it's not rein or reign.
 
I suppose grammatical gender is like how English's spelling is so wildly inconsistent that you have to memorize how to spell a word along with its sound and meaning. You don't have to remember that rain is male, but you do have to remember that it's not rein or reign.
I was thinking of adjective order.

(Adjectives in English have to be in the order of:
  1. Quantity or number
  2. Quality or opinion
  3. Size
  4. Age
  5. Shape
  6. Color
  7. Proper adjective (often nationality, other place of origin, or material)
  8. Purpose or qualifier
If adjectives aren't in that order, it doesn't sound right to a native speaker, but basically nobody could actually tell you this list off-hand. So you wouldn't say 'silver ancient knife', because it sounds weird compared to 'ancient silver knife')
 
I suppose grammatical gender is like how English's spelling is so wildly inconsistent that you have to memorize how to spell a word along with its sound and meaning. You don't have to remember that rain is male, but you do have to remember that it's not rein or reign.
Yeah, for native speakers it's just something you 'feel', like you do verb conjugation, or adjective declension, or spelling. And in most cases, getting it wrong doesn't even change the meaning (though occasionally it does), but it 'feels' wrong to a native speaker.

Languages are arbitrary in a lot of ways. Technically all ways, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top