Pardonu al mi pro skibi esperante, sed mia angla ne estas tre bona.

Ĉiu vi konfuzas sekson (sex) kaj genron (genre).

Ĉiu esperanta o-vorto havas neŭtran genron.

La sekso estas unu el la kvalitoj de homoj kaj bestoj, kiel la koloro, la grando...; kaj mi dirus je dentistaĉetino, tio vorto priskribas femalon, malgranda, malpura, isto de dento, sed tio vorto ne estas femala genro, nek eta genro, nek aĉa genro.

Se vi parolus kun afrikano, ĝi dirus ke tablo havas aĵan genron kaj amo havas ecan genron, ĉar en ĝia nacia lingvo, ĝi havas vortojn kun tiuj genroj.

Ne, ni ne konfuzas tion. Neniu parolis pri la genro.<br />
<br />
[EN] No, we don't mix it up. Noone talked about the grammatical gender.

So would it be just as correct for me to say "Mi estas lernanto" as "mi estas lernantino?" Or should I add the -in to be clear?

hjhj:So would it be just as correct for me to say "Mi estas lernanto" as "mi estas lernantino?" Or should I add the -in to be clear?

Your choice but from my experience "anto" is perfectly neutral, and no one would assume you're a boy.*

Knabo, patro, filo and frato are the few that seem to have a gender, animal names used to be assumed masculine but not always but that no longer really applies (think of things like "tiger" vs "tigress" which aren't really used in English either anymore, or how we refer to cows as cows regardless of the gender (we just assume that it all works out and that the bulls are included in some way!)).

Pretty much everything else has no gender, but there might be one or two words I've missed. In fact, family might be one of the few areas where this gender imbalance occurs, for good or bad.

Lernantino or Studentino would sound awfully specific though, my male wisdom would say "don't bother using it if you don't want to draw extra special attention to your gender".

Some other terms like nurses and teachers (flegistino/instruistino?) seem to take -ino more often, probably because it's more endeering/demanding respect (seemingly paradoxically?) when women use it, but (western) men seem less inclined to use gender forms to refer to ourselves since we think of ourselves as the "default" for whatever silly reason, or maybe we feel like we're compensating for something when we keep referring to our own gender, I dunno.

----

*(Semi-related) EDIT: Longwinded post I know, but I was thinking more about this - I can say that we guys have a terrible habit of assuming people are men in writing if we can't see any gender-stereotypical writing habits (and even then we're pretty daft), or if we can't tell a woman's voice from a young boy's (Bart Simpson ).

Women on the other hand from what I've seen seem to reaffirm each others' genders but also their social status, roles, etc more.

It might be simply that men mentally aren't good at being social with unfamiliar people and that women are good at it, so men don't even think about talking about themselves while women let the other know about themselves to make social interactions go smoother.

Any other thoughts on this?

Evildela:

Mustelvulpo:"Gepatro devas subskribi ĉi tiun permisilon" in preference to "unu el viaj gepatroj." But is the longer phrase preferable to the purist?

I use gepatro, just because its widely established and quite frankly easy to use and understand

Yeah, even if I was a purist* I'd eschew it for simplicity there

*Being a purist requires a near-"native" command of the language though, so it's just as well I'm not trying to be one

I learned about the ge+(insert singular noun here) construction long ago, when the thinking among purists was still "absolutely NOT!" The thing is, it is SO CONVENIENT at times to slip it in (such as in the case of gepatro) to save a lot of verbose circumlocution. It may be unofficial, but it has it's place.

It's sort of reminiscent of the unofficial use of "far" for "done by"--not suitable for formal Esperanto, but it IS understandable, and people use it whether it's frowned upon by the purists or not.

So here's my question--as long as we maintain a clear grasp on what constitutes formal, standard usage, is there any real harm in a little margin of tolerance for some casual register? Every language has it--an "everyday", relaxed level of usage that isn't quite standard, and that people wouldn't use in formal writing, but that people don't condemn as illiterate usage, either.

When I speak informal English among friends, I may end more clauses with prepositions or split a few more infinitives than I normally would in standard writing--most of us do. I may even slip in a few "gonna's" for "going to", or even use the word "ain't"--but nobody would mistake me for uneducated or illiterate. On the other hand, I'm not asking that the rules of English be reconsidered in light of my relaxed speech, either. I don't think it has to be "either-or"---I think there's room for more than one register and level of adherence to the official standard in any language, including Esperanto.

It is an interesting point Polaris whether the notions of register and idiom, clearly useful in the description of natural languages, are productively applicable to Esperanto.

For example, I wouldn't say that 'far' belongs to a more casual register. It's progressive or innovative.

Such new usage is often accompanied by debate among Esperantists as to whether the new form is really required or useful (something that doesn't occur in the case of the natural languages) and then by a process or increasing adoption, or rejection, after consideration of the arguments, the new form either enters the language, or falls by the wayside.

The same seems to me to apply to the extension of 'ge' to embrace the meaning of a single person of either sex.

Ending a sentence with a preposition in English or splitting an infinitive are standard features, by the way, and not issues of register conparable to 'ain't' and 'gonna'.

I don't think that idioms will ever find a place in Esperanto - those idioms whose meaning is not transparent - since this conflicts with the requirement that Esperanto remain easy to learn in adulthood.

A substantial variation in register may yet evolve. But this seems unlikely, given the circumstances in which Esperanto is destined to be used.

I would be interesting to see two contrasting passages in Esperanto, one in formal language, the other in casual speech. Anybody like to have a shot at that?

ceigered:Some other terms like nurses and teachers (flegistino/instruistino?) seem to take -ino more often, probably because it's more endeering/demanding respect (seemingly paradoxically?) when women use it

No, I completely disagree with this. I think people tend to use the -in- endings for those because they are stereotypically feminine professions. Or else the person speaking is an Esperantist (often a European) who feels (wrongly) that it's necessary to put -in- on every single instance when they're referring to a woman. So they will talk about "Mia amikino, kiu estas usonanino, estas ĵurnalistino" ("My female friend, who is a female American, is a female journalist).

Women on the other hand from what I've seen seem to reaffirm each others' genders but also their social status, roles, etc more.

No need to share your stereotyped views of gender roles in this thread. It's not really on topic. You could open a new thread in the Esperanto forums on "the differences between men and women" if you wanted.

I have seen no difference whatsoever between men and women, on use of the -in- ending (or on the ge- prefix). It's influenced heavily by national origin and native language, but not by gender. But you probably wouldn't know that, since you haven't spent any time in Esperanto events.

sudanglo:It is an interesting point Polaris whether the notions of register and idiom, clearly useful in the description of natural languages, are productively applicable to Esperanto.

Regardless of the perceived expedience of the phenomenon for Esperanto, language-speaking communities develop a margin of tolerance for gray areas of informal, "relaxed" usage without a need to A. change the rules of standard usage to accommodate it or B. condemn it as completely illiterate, either. In time, some substandard usage does cross the boundary and become accepted in standard use.

sudanglo:For example, I wouldn't say that 'far' belongs to a more casual register. It's progressive or innovative.

I'm going to disagree with you on that, Sudanglo. I think it's a "dead-ringer" for exactly what we're talking about. Using "far" for "by" or "done by" may, indeed, be innovative, but (unless there have been changes since I last looked), it's still quite unofficial--sort of like coining a preposition--and pedantic purists would probably say to use what's already there. I don't disagree with it's use, but it is substandard, nonetheless.

sudanglo: Such new usage is often accompanied by debate among Esperantists as to whether the new form is really required or useful (something that doesn't occur in the case of the natural languages) and then by a process or increasing adoption, or rejection, after consideration of the arguments, the new form either enters the language, or falls by the wayside.

And that's the crux of the whole issue. Some people have compiled entire LISTS of Esperanto words--words in common parlance--that they frown on as being undesirable for this or that reason. Esperanto, as a movement, engages in more than its share of navel gazing. For SOME of these matters--why the need for an either/or on it? Why not let some things remain in that gray area of tolerance for "relaxed" usage without the need for an official weigh-in on everything?

sudanglo: The same seems to me to apply to the extension of 'ge' to embrace the meaning of a single person of either sex.

No, ge-(singular noun) IS considered substandard. And my point is, so what? There's room for not-quite-standard, "relaxed" register for casual circumstances with any language--why should Esperanto be any different?

sudanglo: Ending a sentence with a preposition in English or splitting an infinitive are standard features, by the way, and not issues of register conparable to 'ain't' and 'gonna'.

Well, I never said I was trying to give parallel examples. I'm simply trying to show examples of areas in English that fall short of the pure, academic standard, but that are tolerated in casual circumstances (at least in certain circles). While it is sometimes acceptable to end sentences with prepositions (particularly with questions and with phrasal verbs), it is still to be avoided in formal usage when it is possible to do so without creating unwarranted awkwardness.

I could have used other, even more glaring examples (I.E. using "they" to avoid "him or her", carelessness with the use of "whom", etc.). I realize that these examples run the gamut of acceptability.

sudanglo: A substantial variation in register may yet evolve. But this seems unlikely, given the circumstances in which Esperanto is destined to be used.

To a certain extent, I think it's already happening, and the process is well under way. Sometimes I read articles that, while quite understandable, startle me with their liberal borrowings or "funky" constructions. Sometimes I later find out that it was my previous unfamiliarity with contemporary usage that contributed to my surprise--other times, it seems to be (ahem) "excessive innovation" on the part of the author. At any rate, languages DO evolve, registers do develop---and I'm not really sure we could stop that process, even if we wanted to.

I think the short answer, Polaris, is that Esperanto isn't like other languages and is subject to different patterns of evolution.

Anyway, if you could find and post one of these articles that seems to you to be in a different register, I would be most interested to see that.

However I think I would concede your point that some members of the Esperanto community can be over-zealous in their desire to maintain the systematicity of the language and reject perfectly valid extensions that do not in fact seriously undermine the language.

There is no reason in principle why Esperanto cannot add to what in a natural language would be closed classes - eg 'far' as a new preposition for disambiguation, or for the avoidance of inelegant repetition of 'de'.

Another example of valid extension would be enlargement of the group of prepositions that can precede an infinitve.

'Sen' was added to this group, and I could see a case for adding 'pri'. However the case for 'na' as an alternative to the accusative seems very weak.