Why are large objects referred to as "she's" and not "he's"?

Only thing that should be called a she: Dishwasher

drier

washing machine

stove

oven

microwave

har har

edit: forgot ironing board

imaps3fanboy

lol ^

Yeah when you think about it, women make themselves to be objects of desire, they do all these unique ways of dressing themselves up. And I love it! But then I think about my lack of funds and get very sadfaced. :(

In some languages, most nouns have a gender (e.g., they are "he" or "she," not "it"). Perhaps some of that has carried over into English.

In some languages, most nouns have a gender (e.g., they are "he" or "she," not "it"). Perhaps some of that has carried over into English.

Palantas

I hope that makes sense.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In some languages, most nouns have a gender (e.g., they are "he" or "she," not "it"). Perhaps some of that has carried over into English.

ghoklebutter

I hope that makes sense.

They're treated with love and respect, like any good woman.

And also men go inside them.

vadicta

.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In some languages, most nouns have a gender (e.g., they are "he" or "she," not "it"). Perhaps some of that has carried over into English.

ghoklebutter

I hope that makes sense.

& @ surrealnumber:

In which case I dont think its so consistent in order to actually claim that there are considerable traces of what is actually a grammatical gender.

Just like you said I believe its merely an association of notions, but not consistent enough to determine actual grammatical genders, which would have specific categories of words (categories that stem from any sort of categorisation based on any characteristic of the words, transparent enough for it to be detected as a parametre that defines categories) "belong" to different grammatical genders.

I am of this opinion, because grammatical gender seems to be very sporadically and rarely present in English, except for human beings of course where the use of "she" and "he" is consistent.

Also, maybe I have this impression because of Greek, but, can we really talk about grammatical gender without there also being gender-specific declensions (at least at some level)?

Hm.... *wonders*

Surrealnumber's link doesnt dictate that, and just states that thats what usually happens with some languages known for their distinct grammatical gender ("there is a high but not absolute correlation between grammatical gender and declensional cIass")but it still feels weird.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In some languages, most nouns have a gender (e.g., they are "he" or "she," not "it"). Perhaps some of that has carried over into English.

I hope that makes sense.

& @ surrealnumber:

In which case I dont think its so consistent in order to actually claim that there are considerable traces of what is actually a grammatical gender.

Just like you said I believe its merely an association of notions, but not consistent enough to determine actual grammatical genders, which would have specific categories of words (categories that stem from any sort of categorisation based on any characteristic of the words, transparent enough for it to be detected as a parametre that defines categories) "belong" to different grammatical genders.

I am of this opinion, because grammatical gender seems to be very sporadically and rarely present in English, except for human beings of course where the use of "she" and "he" is consistent.

Also, maybe I have this impression because of Greek, but, can we really talk about grammatical gender without there also being gender-specific declensions (at least at some level)?

Hm.... *wonders*

Surrealnumber's link doesnt dictate that, and just states that thats what usually happens with some languages known for their distinct grammatical gender ("there is a high but not absolute correlation between grammatical gender and declensional cIass")but it still feels weird.

If a man labels something as a "she", it probably means it's something he's put a lot of time, money, effort, and love into. Not unlike a woman. Things like ships, cars, train locomotives etc. fall into this category.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

& @ surrealnumber:

In which case I dont think its so consistent in order to actually claim that there are considerable traces of what is actually a grammatical gender.

Just like you said I believe its merely an association of notions, but not consistent enough to determine actual grammatical genders, which would have specific categories of words (categories that stem from any sort of categorisation based on any characteristic of the words, transparent enough for it to be detected as a parametre that defines categories) "belong" to different grammatical genders.

I am of this opinion, because grammatical gender seems to be very sporadically and rarely present in English, except for human beings of course where the use of "she" and "he" is consistent.

Also, maybe I have this impression because of Greek, but, can we really talk about grammatical gender without there also being gender-specific declensions (at least at some level)?

Hm.... *wonders*

Surrealnumber's link doesnt dictate that, and just states that thats what usually happens with some languages known for their distinct grammatical gender ("there is a high but not absolute correlation between grammatical gender and declensional cIass")but it still feels weird.

surrealnumber5

Personally, I dont believe it has to do with a heritage of the language, unless we can find that similar objects had the same gender in a more ancient form of English or in other languages that inlfuenced English such as Latin.

Unless the heritage you mean, isnt so much superficial (merely seeing what gender Latin had for x, y and z categories of objects even when loosely categorised that way, or carrying on the same gender identification from older stages of English simply as a grammatic element) but one that has to do more with semantics and the association of notions which isnt coincidental but distinct throughout the culture diachronically. In that case I agree, its very possible, and its probably answered by sociolinguistics (a field I havent studied in uni).

The Why are Boats Called She? article should explain about it.

Big Bertha?

Because men usually name them, and women are hot. Very simple.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] That sounds plausible, but it also could be because of the attributes of those things. For instance, just as a man finds a beautiful woman alluring, so does a man find a ship, with its vastness, fascinating. In this case, a man may call that ship "she".

I hope that makes sense.

& @ surrealnumber:

In which case I dont think its so consistent in order to actually claim that there are considerable traces of what is actually a grammatical gender.

Just like you said I believe its merely an association of notions, but not consistent enough to determine actual grammatical genders, which would have specific categories of words (categories that stem from any sort of categorisation based on any characteristic of the words, transparent enough for it to be detected as a parametre that defines categories) "belong" to different grammatical genders.

I am of this opinion, because grammatical gender seems to be very sporadically and rarely present in English, except for human beings of course where the use of "she" and "he" is consistent.

Also, maybe I have this impression because of Greek, but, can we really talk about grammatical gender without there also being gender-specific declensions (at least at some level)?

Hm.... *wonders*

Surrealnumber's link doesnt dictate that, and just states that thats what usually happens with some languages known for their distinct grammatical gender ("there is a high but not absolute correlation between grammatical gender and declensional cIass")but it still feels weird.

why does everything in france have a gender?

why does everything in france have a gender?

Overlord93

why does everything in france have a gender?

Overlord93

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

why does everything in france have a gender?

metalkitten