![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aldersprig posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
noviceconlangersTalking with Freo, Shuts, and Trix on Twitter got me thinking about genders for my proto-Callanian language.
Current-era Callanthe society differentiates between skilled and unskilled labor sociality and garb-wise - I'm still working on this, because I think that unskilled labor is an acknowledged and respected second class.
I'd mentioned splitting gender by useful and un-useful, which is not the same as skilled and un-skilled.
Which has me to
Skilled -- practical
-- theoretical
Unskilled - decorative
- practical
But I don't know if that makes any sense
Current-era Callanthe society differentiates between skilled and unskilled labor sociality and garb-wise - I'm still working on this, because I think that unskilled labor is an acknowledged and respected second class.
I'd mentioned splitting gender by useful and un-useful, which is not the same as skilled and un-skilled.
Which has me to
Skilled -- practical
-- theoretical
Unskilled - decorative
- practical
But I don't know if that makes any sense
no subject
Date: 2011-11-30 07:04 am (UTC)What about things that are not people? I could see putting flowers into unskilled-decorative, and corn into unskilled-practical, but what about noxious weeds? (Or vermin. Or, for another tack, abstracts.)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-30 01:46 pm (UTC)(Noxious weeds would be an un-useful thing, I think; I knew I forgot a class of unskilled - un-useful)
Abstracts could be a theory thing. Non-practical but good?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:00 pm (UTC)When you said you wanted to split gender by useful and un-useful, did you mean that you were going to use skilled-unskilled as basic gender categories, and then split each into useful and un-useful? Can someone skilled be un-useful? Can something that is not a person be called "unskilled"?
Just using useful/un-useful as your genders would seem simpler to me. It would give you two genders, and it should be easier to sort things that are not people into one of them than if you use skilled vs unskilled as basic categories.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:04 pm (UTC)So yes! Thanks. :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:14 pm (UTC):-D
no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-01 02:33 pm (UTC)