The "it" God

[Pulcinella]

Richard and James: fair comments from (both/each of) you, the word 'you' being another English ambiguity.

Would you like to come to dinner?
Would you both like to come to dinner?
Would you [maybe just one of you] (and your wife/partner/husband....) like to come to dinner?

[ardcarp]

Does the second person singular have gender connotations in any European language?

[french frank]

Does the second person singular have gender connotations in any European language?

Probably not (I don't know) but nor do the first person singular and plural, do they? But ever since I read that there was an African language with a tense which means "I had the intention of doing yesterday but didn't" I can believe anything possible.

[gurnemanz]

Does the second person singular have gender connotations in any European language?

I don't know of a language where a you-form can show gender but the third person past tense in Russian adds an "a"as a feminine form.

On znal = he knew
Ona znala = she knew

Info here:

https://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_past.php

.

[James Wonnacott]

Also called "dummy subject", in that there is no semantic content and it functions only a syntactic place holder. A sentence seems to need a subject as in "it is raining" where nothing is actually doing the raining. Likewise German "es regnet", French "il pleut",. Interestingly, Italian doesn't need a subject, where "piove" suffices.

Russian would be идет дождь - literally "rain goes" so the rain becomes the subject and "it" isn't needed.

[RichardB]

Russian would be идет дождь - literally "rain goes" so the rain becomes the subject and "it" isn't needed.

- exactly like "pada kiša" (rain is falling) in Serbo-Croatian, and I guess the same goes for Slavic languages in general.

[Serial_Apologist]

I wonder if agency acquires a disproportionality, represented by the importance invested in correct pronoun definitions, relative to its denial or forfeiture? In some languages word descriptions stand for both things and actions in such a way that there is no distinction between the thing and its action, but emphasis is placed on there being a working field or network of interrelated and interdependent activity. Perhaps these languages have arisen in cultures where actions speak louder than words, what is done derives more importance than who is doing it, and our stress on the independent ego and its responsibilities is downplayed?

The point I tried to make above was to suggest that such a spiritual or if preferred spiritual basis underpinning culture (including language protocols) might be preferable to the one that sustains our ever-increasingly unsustainable one.