Edit: why on earth is this being downvoted? Seriously confused - is something here wrong or controversial?
> Distinct but unofficial Romance languages like [...] Asturian (spoken in Asturias, a part of Spain) seem to have definite articles (equivalent to English the) for three genders, not two. Asturian has el for masculine nouns, la for feminine and lo for those nouns termed ‘neuter’. [...] The key question is whether these supposed neuter definite articles demonstrate the existence of a neuter gender. Again, sadly, the answer is no. These definite articles and the nouns they are used with (no matter what their origins) seem not to constitute a neuter gender, but rather to signify that the noun is something abstract or a physical mass – that is, an indivisible substance, like water or gold. [...] Why does this contradict the existence of a neuter gender? Because we find this “mass gender” (Harmon 2007) used with nouns that were not neuter in Latin, and because nouns in these languages can appear both with and without the feature, according to whether they have a mass meaning or not. This is therefore not a grammatical feature on the same level as the masculine and feminine genders; instead, the mass gender is a feature of nouns determined by semantics – to what sort of thing the noun refers.
If you wanted to talk about "lo" in standard Spanish, it would make more sense to start from the starting point of what's discussed in the article -- e.g., "The 'lo' construction actually exists in standard Spanish as well, although it's more restricted than in Asturian; rather than being used with any mass noun, it's used to mean..."
Does it? Spanish articles derive from Latin ille / illa / illud ["that", as contrasted with "this"]. The neuter (nominative) form is illud. It is not obvious how this would have resulted in the form lo. Wiktionary suggests ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo#Spanish ) that it derives from the masculine form illum, which makes much more phonological sense. (-m was already so weak in Latin that a syllable ending in -m completely disappeared when followed by a vowel.)
> From a Vulgar Latin *lo, *illu. Masculine pronoun from Latin illum, singular masculine accusative of ille. Neuter article and pronoun form from Latin illud, neuter of ille. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lo#Spanish
That means some uses of "lo" are derived from masculine ille while others are indeed from neuter illud. To answer your phonological uncertainty, the entry shows derivation from illud > *illu > lo.
I agree that avoiding "i am surprised" generally works well for me, as i find ppl can be prickly toward a subtle one-ups-manship vibe. Personally, I often try to find an and-yes angle before adding something I know (esp negating), and it seems like it works alright :)
Anyhow, I appreciate how humble and thoughtful you seem, in making sense of this wierd "up/down vote" system we're compelled to sift meaning from in digital spaces heh
Not to get too off topic, but I got snippy because I just don't understand what standards comments are sometimes held to. Mine may not have been the most interesting comment in the world, but when I go to the trouble of making what I think is a reasonable contribution to the discussion, and then some people decide it's so bad I should do karmic penance, it hurts my feelings. I apologize once again for taking it out on you.
It's not as though you can trade the upvotes for prizes anyway.
"Te deseo lo mejor"
"I want the best for you"
In that phrase, the speaker doesn't know what gender "the best" is, so neuter is used.
It's also true that "lo" is seldom used in Spanish and there are almost no neutral nouns (like in german).
> The issue is that these nouns do not behave like a fully-fledged gender. Importantly, there are no dedicated neuter endings for adjectives; instead, when a Romanian ‘neuter’ noun combines with an adjective, that adjective will be either masculine or feminine.
That is, “lo” is a remnant of the neuter but because it is accompanied by a masculine adjective (there is no such thing as a neuter adjective), it does not constitute a true gender.