>>3706064
>Это неправда, кстати.
Это правда, кстати. Не знаю, насколько дальше твое понимание лингвистики ушло дальше знакомства с японским и английским, но оба они вполне вписываются в систему натуральных языков и их структуру можно понять исходя из данных полученных на русском в пределах русского.
Но структуру языка программирования нельзя понять исходя из никаких данных, полученных в пределах никакого языка.
>Попробуй объясни англичанину, что такое род у существительного, и какой он у бутылки, стола и полотенца.
Ой да ладно, если это предел твоего представления о замутных категориях, то я прям даже не знаю.
So the thing is that people just love to divide things into groups. This is how our brains work they are all about creating hierarchical systems with set of categories containing groups containing discrete blocks. This is what tend to happen independently in different languages - people are pondering on the things they see and talk about and over time split them into several groups. Those groups are generally termed "noun calsses". In the case of the Indo-European languages we call them "grammatical gender". Several millenia ago (around 8-9kya) there were "animate" and "inanimate" calsses and they were actually semantically justified as gender reflected worldview of the people who spoke the language so words for "man", "deer" or "sun" were animate while words for "stone", "child" or "slave" were inanimate. Later the animate "gender" has been divided into masculine and feminine genders as we see them in some IE languages today. At some point words obtained specific endings which were morpological marks clearly indicating what gender a word belongs to.
