The only English adjective with a gender split

[Ursa major]

So true.

What I meant is that my hair used to be red and it's now (very pale) blond... and heading towards white.

 

[ErikB]

What I meant is that my hair used to be red and it's now (very pale) blond... and heading towards white.

Ahhh... I see.

And yet among ancient Scandinavians you would still be red. LOL.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Many people are oblivious to this fact about the word Blond/Blonde. But those in the know will have that much more respect for you as a writer if you ensure that you don't just slap in whatever spelling you normally go with regardless of the gender of your subject.

Best of luck with your writing folks. Cheers!

I hope you'll be liberal in offering forgiveness to writers whose choice of words are "corrected" by their editors? Many editorial staffs have "bibles" on such usages, but if they are incorrect, it's hell to get them to acknowledge it...particularly since the copyeditors who usually get handed the fresh-in mss. are often recent college grads (and thus not always as experienced as one might wish...). (Caveat: only some copyeditors -- there are others who are really sharp and have not yet been beaten down by the job...)

 

[Wiglaf]

In US English, using blond as an adjective to describe a woman's hair is acceptable (becoming acceptable?). I guess since hair has no gender, blond has become a neuter adjective. That said, as a noun, a blonde is the only correct form for a woman, and a man would be a blond.*

* Saying "a blonde" is vastly more common than calling a man "a blond".

 

[AnyaKimlin]

French rooted words used in English. Not original English words.

So is blond/e. From the OED: Late 15th century: from French blond, blonde, from medieval Latin blundus 'yellow', perhaps from Germanic. We were transitioning to modern English.

blonde - definition of blonde in English from the Oxford dictionary

And any sentence with bangs referring to hair is not UK English.

 

[farntfar]

Actually you are mistaken. I just checked and if you are referencing the OED as Oxford English Dictionary then you are quoting one reference source without checking others.

Farntfar apologises and limps off the stage.
Bloody markings remain, in the shape of his left boot.

 

[ErikB]

So is blond/e. From the OED: Late 15th century: from French blond, blonde, from medieval Latin blundus 'yellow', perhaps from Germanic. We were transitioning to modern English.

blonde - definition of blonde in English from the Oxford dictionary

And any sentence with bangs referring to hair is not UK English.

Actually you might want to try the "other" OED which is far more comprehensive than what you have shared.

I would refer you to the Online Etymology Dictionary and for purposes of saving time repeating this over and over, the page before this one has a thread response showing why you are sharing only a partial root from a very extensive background including old English.

Check the previous posts. This has been covered. The French root thing? Not so accurate it turns out.

Cheers!

 

[ErikB]

Farntfar apologises and limps off the stage.
Bloody markings remain, in the shape of his left boot.

LOL.

Would you like some iodine? I have some I can limp over and share with you mate.

Cheers!

 

[ErikB]

In US English, using blond as an adjective to describe a woman's hair is acceptable (becoming acceptable?). I guess since hair has no gender, blond has become a neuter adjective. That said, as a noun, a blonde is the only correct form for a woman, and a man would be a blond.*

* Saying "a blonde" is vastly more common than calling a man "a blond".

Well as an American I would agree with you as to oral usage. However as much as we have altered or modified British English the male and female distinction in written works has not changed just because we're west of the UK.

And this is one of the errors that does occur in literature periodically. I have seen plenty of American publications and authors that DO understand the rule and use it correctly.

But I have seen authors either ignore it or erroneously change it over the course of a book. In the beginning the man and woman are blonde. Later they meet up with a blond woman. Then later still the original blond couple go on to... etc.

That sort of lack of continuity is even worse than misuse of context. It treats the spellings as interchangeable at the author's whim.



Cheers!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Actually you might want to try the "other" OED which is far more comprehensive than what you have shared.

I would refer you to the Online Etymology Dictionary and for purposes of saving time repeating this over and over, the page before this one has a thread response showing why you are sharing only a partial root from a very extensive background including old English.

Check the previous posts. This has been covered. The French root thing? Not so accurate it turns out.

Cheers!

The OED was not inaccurate merely condensed.

Online Etymology Dictionary
"The word was reintroduced into English 17c. from French, and was until recently still felt as French, hence blonde (with French feminine ending) for females. Italian biondo, Spanish blondo, Old Provençal blon all are of Germanic origin."

Our current usage comes from the French. Just like our current usage of Fiance/Fiancee comes from the French rather than the Middle English use of the word.

However as a speaker of UK English it would be a blond(e) fringe not blond(e) bangs.

 

[JunkMonkey]

They do indeed. As far as I know bangs are universal. Though most men don't grow them long enough to need to clear their eyes of them.

Hardly 'universal' I'm a UK Brit (native speaker) and I had to go look up 'bangs' to make sure it was what I know as a 'fringe'.

EDIT: what AnyaKimlin said...

 

[ErikB]

Hardly 'universal' I'm a UK Brit (native speaker) and I had to go look up 'bangs' to make sure it was what I know as a 'fringe'.

EDIT: what AnyaKimlin said...

Differences between what side of the pond one is on.

And actually I find the knit picking over origins and examples rather amusing as compared to the more basic point of the thread which is to use the "e" for a female and leave it out for a male.

One might live on the fringe or get a bang out of debate (sorry the amused side of me is just chomping at the bit) but the primary message of the thread is simply proper use of the gender distinction.

I'd call upon Professor Sullivan to more succinctly defend the original statement about the word but given the fact he has been dead over a decade I will have to just grin and shrug as the smaller points are debated. LOL.

Cheers folks!

 

[Dave]

I'd call upon Professor Sullivan to more succinctly defend the original statement about the word but given the fact he has been dead over a decade I will have to just grin and shrug as the smaller points are debated.

Despite what you might believe, you have not yet proved your statement as the Oxford Etymological Dictionary does not support Prof. Sullivan's view (being a re-introduced word from the French.) Surely, that is the whole point, not a "smaller point" or "nit picking."

Being a Professor of English makes it more likely, but it doesn't automatically mean that he is/was always correct. In any case, you stood this up as a puzzle, not your Professor, so you will have to accept it if we've managed to blow away your house built of straw.

 

[ErikB]

Actually aside from skirting the primary point of usage I beg to differ. The origin of the word is quite obscure and while I realize that some cling fervently to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) as a sole reliable reference source, the fact is that the OED (Online Etymology Dictionary) is not only far more diverse in its contributions toward the possible origins of the word, it also casts a strong doubt as to the ability of anyone to make an absolute claim.

In point of fact the broader potential only casts greater doubt upon your reference and of course the statement that I have not made a positive identification toward establishing the root of the word goes both ways.

It is grossly inaccurate where no definitive proof exists supporting the conclusion that any other root is accurate. I've hardly stood this up as a puzzle since the point of the thread is proper usage rather than the history of the word in order to attempt to debunk the thread title.

I find it humorous that so much time is spent sidetracking the simple point of proper use.

I would share another pet peeve in writing that has become a broadly accepted spoken term in the US and yet is absolutely inaccurate and entirely the wrong word, but as a new contributor looking at the ridiculous length of this thread as a handful of readers chew away and debate the pointless, I would rather not spend time in a second discussion over the peeve in question given that it will possibly be okay on Tuesdays or during the winter solstice or when a practicing druid and an editor both approve the use after sacrificing a chicken.

LOL. The things that writers worry about are still remarkable to me...

Thanks for sharing. The straw in my house is in the cob. And if you knock and promise to not huff and puff too much, I'll gladly let you in mate.

Cheers!

 

[Wiglaf]

Well as an American I would agree with you as to oral usage. However as much as we have altered or modified British English the male and female distinction in written works has not changed just because we're west of the UK.

And this is one of the errors that does occur in literature periodically. I have seen plenty of American publications and authors that DO understand the rule and use it correctly.

But I have seen authors either ignore it or erroneously change it over the course of a book. In the beginning the man and woman are blonde. Later they meet up with a blond woman. Then later still the original blond couple go on to... etc.

That sort of lack of continuity is even worse than misuse of context. It treats the spellings as interchangeable at the author's whim.



Cheers!

Actually, for American English, many sources support a single neuter adjective of blond. This seems to be a change, but if the young people's references say to use it that way, you would have to understand why they would do so. Of course, you don't have to like the change, and young (North?) American writers would still have to be consistent.

Blond or Blonde?
Blond vs. blonde - Grammarist

 

[Brian G Turner]

Online Etymology Dictionary

It's a superb resource, and IMO proven to be more thorough on word origins that the Oxford English Dictionary for the references I've looked up.

I really don't understand why the discussion has digressed so much - perhaps I should edit the thread title so that it says "adjective" instead of "word" to settle the issue.

 

[WaylanderToo]

They do indeed. As far as I know bangs are universal. Though most men don't grow them long enough to need to clear their eyes of them.

Unless of course you're a hipster

What I meant is that my hair used to be red and it's now (very pale) blond... and heading towards white.

I wish my hair could turn towards white - omly issue is I'd have to have hair to begin with

 

[TheDustyZebra]

And actually I find the knit picking over origins and examples rather amusing

If you keep picking at that knit, you'll soon find yourself without a sweater. Or jumper, depending on which side of the pond you call your home.

Picking at nits, on the other hand, is recommended at all times.

Sacrificing chickens is not.

 

[2DaveWixon]

In US English, using blond as an adjective to describe a woman's hair is acceptable (becoming acceptable?). I guess since hair has no gender, blond has become a neuter adjective. That said, as a noun, a blonde is the only correct form for a woman, and a man would be a blond.*

* Saying "a blonde" is vastly more common than calling a man "a blond".

Agreeing with you, I will nonetheless note that in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Eastwood's "man-with-no-name" characters was addressed (by Eli Wallach's character) as "Blondie" (or maybe "Blondy"?). (Has little value to add to this discussion, I admit...I bring it in only because that's the way my mind worked...)

 

[ErikB]

You guys rock. Such a fascinating variety of discussion points for this simple thread. And I'm happy to change the thread title to adjective.

Cheers!