Re: KGT: naHjej or neHjej?

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:55:50 -0400 David Trimboli 
<SuStel@email.msn.com> wrote:

> jatlh charghwI':
> 
> > At this point, I'd consider either one to be correct. Both
> > exist in canon. {neHjej} can be easily found in the word
> > list, so using it is fine. Meanwhile, {naHjej} is clearly
> > the way he originally intended the word to be used, so, it
> > would be hard to call it wrong. In English, we have one
> > word spelled "blond" and another spelled "blonde". Which
> > one is right?
> 
> 
> When referring to a man, "blond" is correct.  When referring to a woman,
> "blonde" is correct.

As I understand it, this is a direct rip-off from French, who 
apparently know something about blondes. Meanwhile, apparently, 
"blond" is the term that is commonly used for hair without 
reference to gender or for a man with blond hair, but a woman 
with blond hair is a blonde. Or at least that's how the Oxford 
Encyclopedic Dictionary sees it.
 
> "Blond/blonde" is the only instance of adjectival gender left in English.
> (Y'know, how Spanish would have "muchacho feo" and "muchacha fea," for
> instance.  The adjective has a gender-based form.  Well, "blond/blonde" is
> the only English adjective which does this.)

Likely that's because it is actually French and not English.

> Note that most people do not know this distinction.  Very soon, in
> language-scale, "blond/blonde" will probably settle into one form, or at
> least lose any distinction it once had.  Those who do know of the two
> spellings usually don't know what they mean, anyway.

Unless they speak French.

> SuStel
> Stardate 99797.4

charghwI'