An Experiment in Conlang Gender Diversity

Published by

Becci Cat

Queer, disabled, polyamorous transgender lunatic. ✨✨ Kvira, malkapabla, pluramema transgenra frenezulino.

I set out in November to write a constructed language that celebrated gender diversity. Many conlangs skirt the issue of gender through the use of a single third-person pronoun, as is also seen in many natural languages. I wanted to do something a bit different.

Part of my inspiration for this was, in fact, Suzette Haden Elgin, who constructed Láadan out of a belief that women were “not superior to men (Matriarchy) or interchangeable with and equal to men (Androgyny) but rather entirely different from men.” I felt similarly about gender in conlangs: it is very easy to make everyone the same, but it misses the point of gender diversity.

Just as Elgin created a series of books about the construction of Láadan, I ended up creating a culture of people who spoke the language, a world they lived in, and various other cultures who lived alongside them. It’s still in progress, and the language is still “evolving” (being developed by me) in many ways. Some of the things that were true about the language at the beginning of December have been changed since then.

The contest Lexember was very helpful to me in developing it, although the gender system has been there from the very beginning and has barely changed aside from a few tweaks. You can read about the gender system on my conlanging Tumblr.

It has occurred to me, though, that the gender system of this fictional culture is still centered around the concept that binary gender is the norm (I wish I knew the word for this). You are either male, female, or “miscellaneous.” So as I keep developing this culture and its world, I will have to think of ways to break out of this in future cultures, worlds, langs, etc. This experiment will, hopefully, inspire better ones, either in me or in someone else.

12 thoughts on “An Experiment in Conlang Gender Diversity”

  1. I am definitely on the “only one 3rd person pronoun” myself, as an egalitarian “sex-based” gender system is hell to develop historically (noun class are funnier to play with, methinks); but I have sympathy for attempts to do otherwise.

    You have currently two non-specified pronouns, ix and iz. If you ever encounter other gender conformations, it would be good to have a way to generate a new batch of pronouns. One of my conlangs had the onset of the referent copied to various postpositions, verbs, etc, to behave as a pronoun. Ex: llxills “snake”, llxaztx “around him (the snake)”. Here, the postposition is -aztx “around”.

    But your current iC pattern is too restrictive in that regard. Something else must be done. Why not avoid pronouns altogether and just use demonstrative to fill in the role? As there is no grammatical gender (= the grammar makes no use of the distinction, e.g. adjectival agreement), the differentiation is likely to be lost, unless there is a strong pressure from the culture to keep it. In the latter case, words like “the man”, “the woman”, “the androgyn” and so on will be used on par with demonstratives, like…
    “I saw Pehta, this_one was coming from the baths. Woman has always found ’em relaxing”
    or even “I saw Pehta, was coming from the baths, has always found ’em relaxing” with no pronouns whatsoever, as is possible in Japanese.

    Some languages demand that the 2nd person as well encodes gender. As your culture seems gender-oriented, you could go in that direction…

    Anyway, welcome in the conlanging community (am I not too late?), and may the wind blow strong behind your sails!

  2. I’m not a con-langer, but I thought this was an interesting question

    One idea is a series of pronouns which are based on a different non-oppressive binary.

    So perhaps maybe a language has a series of pronouns which reflect how close the speaker is to the third person.

    “I like beep” — Beep is someone I DON’T know personally. A politician, a celebrity, etc.
    “I like boop” — Boop is someone I do know. I have a crush on boop!

    Maybe it’s not even a binary, maybe there are more levels than just “don’t know” and “know.”

    These are just nonsense words obviously, and it is just a hypothetical example of a system where pronouns aren’t so dry as “it” and aren’t based on a gender binary.

    Another idea I had is a language where pronouns are an “open class.” There are natual languages where this is the case. The way this might work would be that a constructed language has a system where other words could be marked as pronouns.

    So let’s say that Esperanto decided to add a non-Fundiment affix which would allow any root to be classed as a pronoun. (I know Esperanto would never do this lol) Let’s say this affix is the controversial pronoun -ri-.

    “Mi ŝatas inrin ĉar inri estas bela” –A fairly standard “She” created from “Ino” using this system
    “Junri ne iris al lernejo” — “The young one” didn’t go to school
    “Bonri donas monon al bonria amiko.” “The good one” gave money to the good one’s friend”

    Such a system would probably have a couple of stock pronouns for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, but the person of new pronouns would probably be flexible and context dependent, as it is in some natural languages.

    “Kiel ĉefri fartas?” == “How are you (boss)?”
    “Ĉefri ŝatas kiam laboro finiĝas frue” == “The one who is the boss” likes when work is finished early” This would be translated to a 3rd person pronoun in English

    Such a system would of course unfortunately allow the creation of vulgar pronouns (just as in natural languages where pronouns are an open class)

    “Kacri ŝtelus dolĉaĵojn el beboj!” = “You(vulg) would steal candy from babies!”

    Just an example of what pronouns as an open class might look like. Hope you don’t mind me going on so long in your comments…

    1. I like your ideas, Lily! There are of course many scales possible besides binary. I tried a home-language with my flatmate once, where the 3rd person pronoun was divided between younger(than us)/friends/non-friends(our age)/older people. True, an age-based scale may prove oppressive; but people are, not words directly. So if you’re nice enough…

  3. Keep in mind that I am a trans woman and as such, I obviously don’t believe that gender is oppressive. I think the assignment of genders by other people is oppressive, but I don’t believe it’s a social construct or that everyone is really the same but is artificially put into different groups. Making every gender the same is not, in any way, an interest of mine.

    On the other hand, I definitely think that the gender binary can be oppressive for those who don’t see themselves fitting into either part of the binary, so I’m sort of interested in a language that would permit more diversity rather than homogenizing everyone. Essentially I am interested in a language that allows the full spectrum of genders to be represented. I realize pronouns don’t necessarily have to be involved in this, but I think they certainly are useful.

    Also, English is an obvious counterexample to the claim that a language without grammatical gender would lose gender entirely. English still has pronouns like “he, she, they,” and in fact is even gaining new ones like “ze, xe, ve,” etc.

    1. Or consider Turkish and Chinese, languages with no grammatical gender whatsoever, even for pronouns (Chinese introduced a written differentiation between 3rd male and 3rd female in the 20th though, influenced by european languages).

      A lot of Americans recognize the concept of race. But their pronouns haven’t evolved to distinguish between “Afro-american”, “Native American”, etc., even if it’s a defining feature of their worldview. The thing is not that English has three different 3rd sg personal pronouns distinguished by gender, but that it has kept them.
      3rd person pronouns in Indo-European languages did evolve from demonstratives: as such, they agreed with the grammatical gender of their referent (masculine/feminine/neuter), something every noun had. Comes Modern English and grammatical gender has disappeared, as the erosion of word endings erased the agreement between noun and their modifiers (adjectives, determiners).
      So, why is there still a distinction he/she/it?
      The answer is: because even if there is no more agreement with nouns, to distinguish different 3rd persons is very practical. Ex:

      “John saw Mary. She was angry”

      is not the same as:

      “John saw Mary. He was angry”

      If there was but one 3rd person pronoun, there would be an ambiguity (who’s angry?) that could be dissipated only with a longer phrase, like “the latter/the former”. Several North-American languages have what is called a 4rd person, that is, a second 3rd person referent, introduced after the 3rd person referent proper. Nothing of it in English, but the formerly grammatical distinction has been kept to avoid an overhaul of the pronoun system.
      It’s not to say that any idea of gender has disappeared, of course no. “He” and “she” are used for things like ships or particularly cute hardware, when the speaker enforce their idea of gender roles upon objects. But it is secondary; the culture makes them use the pronouns, not the other way around.

      I wonder if I was being relevant…

      1. You’re not wrong, and what you are saying is definitely relevant, valid, and true. I find it interesting that “gender”-based grammatical gender occurs not only in the Indo-European languages, but also in the Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages. Some of the Dravidian languages only distinguish between animate and inanimate, but it appears that Proto-Dravidian must have further distinguished masculine and feminine within the animate nouns, unless this was some secondary evolution. This seems to say agree with what I’m saying: but I could still be wrong. And I am sure there must be other language families with masculine/feminine distinction. It seems like a paradigm that is not necessary but often repeated in languages that apparently had no common ancestor.

        Within the conworld that I’m writing, there is only one language family other than the Southern family with any gender distinction in pronouns, and this other family is extinct. Otherwise, Western distinguishes between “permanent” and “impermanent,” whereas Eastern and Northern have no distinctions. A family of languages spoken by people from another continent, as well as one group of people on the continent, distinguishes “human, animal, and thing” in the pronouns. So I get that pronouns don’t have to be about gender. I just like the idea of creating a culture with more permissive attitudes toward gender, that have existed for a very long time, and seeing what problems might arise within such a culture as well as between it and its neighbors.

        1. Nevermind, I obviously didn’t read what I linked clearly enough. It says they’re not sure whether masculine/feminine existed in Proto-Dravidian.

          Either way, it’s interesting that it occurs in the Afro-Asiatic languages which are apparently completely unrelated to the Indo-European ones, and that it exists in some modern Dravidian languages.

          1. We can more or less reconstruct how grammatical gender did arise in Indo-European; first an animate/inanimate distinction, nouns behaving differently syntactically if they were animate or inanimate. Then, a common way to get collectives (“froup of”) was to put a suffix *-h2 on nouns. These were inanimates (and actually evolved to form the plural of inanimate nouns). Now, there are clues that PIE speakers were early agriculturalists, and they began to use that suffix for herds of animal. As the main bulk of herds are female individuals, they were exclusively referred to with -h2 nouns… and came the totally random fact that the word for “woman”, *gʷenh2, ended in -h2 (and here it was not a suffix, but part of the root). From that on, the suffix got a new meaning “female referent” and was added everywhere it could. Feminine became a grammatical gender when agreement with the adjectives and determiners appeared, and when it fused to an extent with the animate gender (which became called masculine from that point on).
            (the suffix *-h2 became later mostly -a in daughter languages)

            Now, gender in Afro-Asiatic is more mysterious than ever, because that family’s proto-language has been established to date from 10 000 years ago (as opposed to 6 000 for PIE), and in all likelihood had already a feminine marker *t.

  4. Fascinating :)

    On a bit of a tangent, a lot of people shoot for realism in their conlangs… I feel the main point of a non-auxiliary conlang is to tell a story, and sometimes stories exist to make a point, although they don’t have to at all. As a non-linguist I barely even try for realism, as it’s not something I would be capable of. But I also make sure my conlangs take place in alternate worlds and universes, where things wouldn’t ever be expected to happen the way they did in our world/universe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *