10-12-2003, 10:54 PM
Shlama Tauf,
Linguistically, no.
Practically, yes. When we say "Bnai Anasha" (sons of men) - of course linguistically speaking "Bnai" (derived from "ben", "son") means masculine.
But the phrase can encompass both genders in the sense of "mankind."
See how "mankind" has the word "man" in it? So linguistically speaking, it's masculine. But that doesn't mean that "mankind" practically means only men.
I hope that made sense.
Your question seemed to me to be addressing linguistics and genders of words, and not how those words may be applied. I now know you meant otherwise.
To answer you question, since Aramaic is a heavily gendered language - everything spoken in it refers to a specific gender linguistically - and this calls for many rules regarding formation of pronouns, enclitics and possessives.
In practice, the language of course has generic uses for these strongly-gendered words.
God I hope that made sense. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s -->
Linguistically, no.
Practically, yes. When we say "Bnai Anasha" (sons of men) - of course linguistically speaking "Bnai" (derived from "ben", "son") means masculine.
But the phrase can encompass both genders in the sense of "mankind."
See how "mankind" has the word "man" in it? So linguistically speaking, it's masculine. But that doesn't mean that "mankind" practically means only men.
I hope that made sense.
Your question seemed to me to be addressing linguistics and genders of words, and not how those words may be applied. I now know you meant otherwise.
To answer you question, since Aramaic is a heavily gendered language - everything spoken in it refers to a specific gender linguistically - and this calls for many rules regarding formation of pronouns, enclitics and possessives.
In practice, the language of course has generic uses for these strongly-gendered words.
God I hope that made sense. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan