tommjames:You missed "or neutral".

I didn't, actually. I was specifically talking about familial terms. I think we can both agree that "patro", "nepo", and "filo" are not neutral.

tommjames:Or maybe "fathers and mothers" is too sexist for you? Sorry.. "mothers and fathers". There we go.

Aww, funny. Of course this is not only extremely rude but also has no bearing on anything I've said, especially considering that I said at one point "males and females". I guess my desire to be seen as human as opposed to "something else" is crazy feminazi talk around this boy's club.

tommjames:In my own case it's nothing to do with those things. The reason I dislike -iĉ, and useless reform proposals more generally, is that they can never actually be realised. Thus they are a complete waste of time. So discussing them as if they were some sort of viable solution that deserves anyone's attention really does not appeal to me at all. Esperanto isn't open to reforms, so what exactly is the point of a reform proposal?

tommjames:Assuming by "choose to change it" you mean "choose it change it in sufficient numbers that some actual change could be realised", I'd have to disagree. Seems like pure fantasy really.

I'm afraid I can't respect that kind of thinking. I think it's downright developmentally arresting and irresponsible behavior to scoff at things like this and suggest that nobody try anything different because they're doomed to fail. Whether or not you're willing to admit it, there are valid reasons to believe in -iĉismo. I do respect your belief that it shouldn't be changed, but not the way you've decided to express it.

For me it's not a question of being sexist or not; it's just not logical and therefore more complicated than it has to be: You have to remember 20 special roots, which are inherently male.

Using "-iĉ-" is one way to change this and IMO the mont convenient one. It would also make the affix "-ge-" obsolete (ok, you could still use it to emphasize that both genders are refered to).

Another possibility is to add 20 new roots with inherent female meaning.
For example: patro/matro, frato/soro, onklo/tanto, ... OK - maybe not for all of them; a female version of eŭnuko ain't necessary
This would be laŭ-Fundamenta and make it more logical. But it would also make it a little bit more complicated.

I prefer "-iĉ", but honestly i find myself very, very seldom in situations, where i use one of the 20 special roots (and in almost all other situations you wouldn't notice me being an Iĉisto).

Kirilo81:For me it is a problem that a "mother" is expressed just as a female who is like a "father".

Why is it a problem? Aren't mothers exactly a female father? In the same way in which fathers are male mothers? I can understand that you don't like the starting point of this derivation, but defining it as a problem sounds exaggerated to me.

Kirilo81:Anyhow, because of less than 20 such words I won't throw away a working language, otherwise I would have to be just silent, as no language is perfect.

But gepatro is an impossible form, as ge- means "both sexes", so a gepatro would be some kind of hermaphrodite. Zamenhof, BTW, used ge- only for natural pairs, even gesinjoroj for "ladies and gentlemen" is an innovation.
Why not use gepatrano for "parent", at least this is a kind of group?

I didn't know this thing about gepatro before reading this topic. Are you sure about it? Because in the lernu! vocabulary if I write gepatro I obtain "a parent", and more specifically on vortaro.net, writing gepatro I obtain patro aŭ patrino, only with the plural form gepatroj I obtain patro kaj patrino.

We could also say "malpatrino" instead of patro if that bothers so much, or invent some new words like "matro" as someone before suggested in this topic. Nevertheless the fact that Esperanto is sexist seems completely unfounded to me.

Kirilo81:But gepatro is an impossible form, as ge- means "both sexes", so a gepatro would be some kind of hermaphrodite.

That's the strict interpretation, and one could certainly argue against 'gepatro' for 'parent' on logical grounds. But there is a view that over time ge- may become more acceptable to show neŭtrality only. PMEG's view, in case you were interested, is:

PMEG:multaj opinias ĝin nelogika kaj neregula. Tiaj vortoj estas tamen kompreneblaj kaj povas esti utilaj. La estonteco montros, ĉu ili akceptiĝos.

(many consider it illogical and irregular. Nevertheless those types of words are understandable and can be useful. Time will tell whether they become accepted.)

I'm a woman and I'm not especially bothered by Esperanto's approach to gender. No, it isn't done as I would have done it. But it's too late to change it now. It is a living language, and drastic reforms to living languages (you don't see it as drastic but it is) are normally doomed to fail.

There's this perception that Esperanto is different and more reformable than other living languages, because of its origins, but that's not actually the case. So it's actually true that even by having this discussion, we're giving false hope.

Some time back there was a suggestion that language reform proposals should only be allowed to be discussed in the Esperanto-only forums, to force someone to actually learn the language before discussing their reforms.

It won't happen. But I admit that at times like this, I wish such a rule existed. I think that proposing reforms to a language that you do not speak sounds arrogant.

This world has many big problems with sexism and inequality. In my opinion, exactly zero of those problems would be solved by changing Esperanto. Not that this is something that would happen - it won't. People who don't speak Esperanto and haven't spent time in the community don't have the perspective to see the depth of the Esperanto cultural stand against changing the Fundamento.

Tempodivalse:I think simple evolution, over time, has dissipated or at least minimised some less popular parts of Esperanto, in a much more natural way than a brute-force "reform" could ever have done. For example: the letter Ĥ is now almost obsolete, because the community of speakers thought it superfluous; affixes like -isto and -ulo went from being considered "male-unless-indicated-otherwise" to gender-neutral; affixes like "-eg-" and "-et-" are now routinely used as standalone words, whereas before this would have been quite unusual. If there is a broad wish for even more gender neutrality, then I think you'll see things like "vir-" creep into general usage more often. It shouldn't necessarily be resisted if it becomes a wide trend. Esperanto is a living language and we need to accept that, just as we wouldn't insist that people should continue writing in 1850s Victorian English.

eg and et were ALWAYS intended for use as stand-alone words; Zamenhof even considered "o" to be a standalone word. So that is not actually an innovation.

Ĥ still exists, and of course there are some 'double' words now, that exist both in K and Ĥ form, and that's ok. That's called natural evolution, and you'll notice that nothing in the Fundamento has changed. It's like our constitution. We can evolve as other languages do, but the Fundamento has to remain valid. If you changed the meaning of "patro" to mean "parent", that would be a change in the Fundamento, because the Fundamento defines it as "father". Esperantists don't resist natural evolution. But we do resist reform proposals that chip away at the foundation of the language. Esperanto isn't up for reform any more than English is, but Esperanto changes gradually through evolution, as English does.

"vir-" creeping in is fine; it's use of normative Esperanto, and I don't have a problem with that. No one says that we have to talk exactly as Zamenhof talked. But we do have to stick within the rules he set up, if we want to be speaking Esperanto, and not a new language based on Esperanto. There is a lot of flexibility within those rules, there's nothing to chafe at.

So what I'm trying to say is, if there is enough desire among a language's speakers for change, then change will occur organically. Making formal reform proposals works sometimes, but in general is a risky business.

Right. Esperanto's speakers don't desire change. They saw in the past that constructed languages that were subjected to reform projects usually died rapidly. A few learners desire change, but they don't speak the language yet, so they don't get a vote. And when they do learn the language well and speak it, they normally no longer wish to change it!

verdafeino:I didn't, actually. I was specifically talking about familial terms.

Were you? Ok fine. It's just you seemed to just be talking about "nouns".

verdafeino:Of course this is not only extremely rude but also has no bearing on anything I've said

Actually it does:

"Vir- as a prefix seems strange and makes no sense in the context of -in being a suffix. Why in the world would it be placed in the front of a word while the feminine is not? Even this seems to be some way of holding the masculine in higher esteem."

To be fair, the idea that "vir" being at the front of a word somehow privileges the male sex is approximately as silly as saying the same thing about "fathers and mothers" instead of "mothers and fathers". But I do apologise if my rudeness has offended you.

verdafeino:I guess my desire to be seen as human as opposed to "something else" is crazy feminazi talk around this boy's club.

Oh I wouldn't go that far. But then, I wouldn't accept that deriving patrino from patro means you're not seen as human, or that you're "something else". What's so great about being the default? Maybe being the default is a lesser state, and femininity is special because you get your own -in suffix?

The answer is the same as the answer to the claim that "patrino" is sexist: "That's ridiculous".

verdafeino:I do respect your belief that it shouldn't be changed

Actually I have no such belief. My thoughts as to whether or not iĉismo "should" or "should not" be incorporated into Esperanto are scant to non-existent. This is a non issue to me, for the reasons I highlighted in my post.. it cannot happen, so there's no reason to waste any time thinking about it.

As it happens I agree that Esperanto would have been better off with the "neutral-first" paradigm that you proposed. But it's too late to change the language now, so why waste so much mental and emotional energy on it? It's not worth it.

efilzeo:In my opinion this is just obsession, as the post here below proves:

Maverynthia:Also men... you can't define what is and isn't sexist. Only women can define it as only women are affected by it. So listen to us.

I have to agree with Maverynthia. Men should get to decide what misandry constitutes and women should get to decide what misogyny constitutes. It makes sense.

But to be honest as fervently as it might seem I'm arguing this whole sexism issue, I don't think it has any "Sapir-Whorfian" effect on people... as if it causes sexist thoughts and behaviors. There will still be issues of sexism no matter how neutral a language is. If this is the way it will continue to work, so be it. But I think most people see it as a logical issue first and maybe sexist secondarily. I know I do. Just the fact that it makes sense is good enough reason for me to support it.

erinja:There's this perception that Esperanto is different and more reformable than other living languages, because of its origins, but that's not actually the case. So it's actually true that even by having this discussion, we're giving false hope.

You're so right, and this motivates me to stop participating in this thread now, although it is interesting in a theoretical way.

Just one last word:

PMEG skribis:
multaj opinias ĝin nelogika kaj neregula. Tiaj vortoj estas tamen kompreneblaj kaj povas esti utilaj. La estonteco montros, ĉu ili akceptiĝos.

(many consider it illogical and irregular. Nevertheless those types of words are understandable and can be useful. Time will tell whether they become accepted.)

For me gepatro is not immediately understandable (a shemale? hm, unlikely, so probably a father or mother...).
Experimental words like this should not appear in the lernu!-dictionary.

erinja:A few learners desire change, but they don't speak the language yet, so they don't get a vote. And when they do learn the language well and speak it, they normally no longer wish to change it!

From my short experience I have to confirm it, and now I totally agree with the antaŭparolo of the Fundamento.

Always this argument "Esperanto is over 120 years old — it's immutable"... Every language changes all the time, no matter how old it is. It might be impossible to declare any change as official Esperanto and expect the speakers to follow. But if e.g. everybody starts to replace "ŭ" with "w", then the language has changed! Yes, it is that simple! If the majority does not want to use "-iĉ-" then it's fine too. I can't understand why so many people see language as something that has to be static. Maybe Esperantists are very susceptible to do so because they know the Ido-disaster; i don't know.