morfran:
Sometimes it’s Esperanto’s existing symmetry: the apparent inverse relationship between -nj- and -in- in itself suggests a suffix -iĉ- to correspond to -ĉj-. One hardly needs to be Gloria Steinem to see that.

Sometimes it’s the inconvenient lack of symmetry: with ge-, for example, one can easily refer to spouses, parents, and siblings, but a new Esperantist sees no convenient word for a spouse, a parent, or a sibling; one must pick a gender. A masculine suffix, it’s argued, combined with the addition of some gender-neutral words for parent, spouse, etc., could remedy that without changing the meaning of existing masculine words.

I think that this very nicely (and objectively) summarizes the issue. As a new Esperantist, I found found it a little bit perplexing that the language lacks gender neutral words like sibling or spouse, but instead always assigns a gender (somewhat like French).

I understand that being new to this community, I lack the experience to make firm and absolute judgments, but after reading through this thread and the similar "iĉo" thread I have come to the conclusion that this is a legitimate question.

A number of people have claimed that the only people who want this change are simply angry feminists and that the current system is not sexist. I agree that Zamenhof did not intend to offend anybody when creating Esperanto, but I think we have to take into consideration the fact that gender roles have significantly changed since Zamenhof's time. Back then, the suffix "ino" to emphasize femininity would have been necessary when the assumption was that most jobs were filled by a man. A "panisto" would probably be a man unless they were specifically said to be female by using "panistino."

Yet from what I have read in modern times most people would simply not assume any gender upon hearing "panisto." However this in itself creates a little bit of ambiguity: a more traditional Esperantist may perceive a male connotation while another would perceive no connoted gender. Thus would it not make sense to be able to use a suffix to specify gender and assume otherwise that it is unspecified?

Quite a few people have commented on the need to prevent different dialects from forming, and I believe that if this issue is not addressed it is possible that while dialects may not form explicitly, different groups of speakers could perceive different connotations from different words and we may have something analogous to the way the word "biscuit" is interpreted differently by Americans and Brits.

In summary I think that more seriously considering these proposed suffixes would help to unify interpretation and also very importantly provide a set of gender-neutral words which are currently lacking in the language.

morfran:
Long-time Esperantists obviously have made their peace with virino, etc.; new Esperantists are understandably puzzled. Hardly warrants everyone ripping into a new Esperantist asking the reason for it.

Are they learning a language or what? With any other language they would accept more horrible things. To learn a language is never about to figure out how to change it to like it more.

morfran:Some of the disproportionate vitriol in this thread seems rooted in contempt for what’s seen as faddish political correctness, but sexual egalitarianism isn’t the only reason -iĉ- keeps coming up.

Sometimes it’s Esperanto’s existing symmetry: the apparent inverse relationship between -nj- and -in- in itself suggests a suffix -iĉ- to correspond to -ĉj-. One hardly needs to be Gloria Steinem to see that.

And why is so hard to see other acceptable reasons just to leave it alone? I mean it's evident that Zamenhof saw the thing in another way (not in the wrong way) making us to learn one suffix less, and searching another kind of symmetry (viro and virino have a symmetry with the way of work of the rest no-neutral gender words, either you like it or not) or asymmetry: For many people, Esperanto is too much symmetric to be accepted. How to keep happy everybody? There isn't a way to make the perfect language to be liked it by everyone. To accept that change is really problematic because it changes the whole gender system and it's not compatible with the real system.

morfran:Sometimes it’s the inconvenient lack of symmetry: with ge-, for example, one can easily refer to spouses, parents, and siblings, but a new Esperantist sees no convenient word for a spouse, a parent, or a sibling; one must pick a gender. A masculine suffix, it’s argued, combined with the addition of some gender-neutral words for parent, spouse, etc., could remedy that without changing the meaning of existing masculine words.

That's why we ask patience to learn well Esperanto. If someone need a neutral gender form for no-neutral word root just use the suffix -ul: patrulo, fratulo, edzulo, filulo. So, that argument just shows how the people talk without knowing the language enough.

morfran:I myself am not arguing for or against it; I’m just telling you what I’ve read, and that it’s not all about sexism. Not that the reason should matter. Either one finds the proposal useful or one doesn’t. (I once read in Being Colloquial in Esperanto that Esperantists in San Diego use novali as slang for “to space/zone out”. Not really PIV, but I never felt the need to accuse San Diegan Esperantists of noobish arrogance for it.)

Ok but anyway that word (and many other neologisms), worthy or not, doesn't change the way the grammar works. It's not the same thing.

morfran:In any case, all this fuss is just over an additional neologism that doesn’t change any preexisting vocabulary. Maybe a handful of neologisms.

You are totally wrong about that. I already explain you why. Anything changing the way the grammar works, and specially anything like this that just mess up the grammar, is to be rejected.

And -in is still a very powerful suffix.

Ĝis, Novatago.

Concorde:

morfran:
Sometimes it’s Esperanto’s existing symmetry: the apparent inverse relationship between -nj- and -in- in itself suggests a suffix -iĉ- to correspond to -ĉj-. One hardly needs to be Gloria Steinem to see that.

Sometimes it’s the inconvenient lack of symmetry: with ge-, for example, one can easily refer to spouses, parents, and siblings, but a new Esperantist sees no convenient word for a spouse, a parent, or a sibling; one must pick a gender. A masculine suffix, it’s argued, combined with the addition of some gender-neutral words for parent, spouse, etc., could remedy that without changing the meaning of existing masculine words.

Why do you find this to be a lack? What is the point of hiding the sex of your partner? I thought gays wanted equal rights, not the right to hide themselves. So if you're gay are you ashamed to say that you have an edzo? If you are a son of a gay couple you are ashamed to say that you have two patroj or two patrinoj? What is the point of all that?

Moreover if you really find this thing unacceptable just find alternatives that are already present in the language itself before accusing the entire language. You want to say spouse without specifying if he's a man or she's a female? Good, say "amatulo", "parano", "edzulo", "edziĝulo", "edziĝano", someone even says that you can say "geedzo", even if this is grammatically incoherent. You have many ways to solve this "problem". But honestly I still think that the problem just exists in someone's mind. If you are ashamed of your sexuality than just don't say anything about it or lie. You can easily say "my gepatrano" to say "parent" but what is the point of it? If you use such a word I immediately understand that your parents are gay because you're not using the common word "patro" or "patrino", so what is the point of it? Just say it as it is.

Regarding the point about jobs I disagree too. The suffix -ino is there only to specify the female gender, but it's not necessary. So if I see a female officer and I say "oficisto" I am grammatically correct, I don't need to specify that she's a female because I'm referring to his/her role, not his/her sex, which is exactly what the supporters of "iĉ" want.

novatago:Are they learning a language or what?

I’m sure they’re trying to. Part of learning a language is asking questions about why things are this way or that. When ASCarroll and others ask about a neologism they read about somewhere, it doesn’t make them Idists; it makes them new Esperantists who don’t know that certain subjects and buzzwords will get them ganked in a forum.

novatago:And why is so hard to see other acceptable reasons just to leave it alone?

Being new to the language, they obviously haven’t seen any acceptable reasons yet. Probably why they asked.

novatago:If someone need a neutral gender form for no-neutral word root just use the suffix -ul: patrulo, fratulo, edzulo, filulo. So, that argument just shows how the people talk without knowing the language enough.

Interesting solution from an orthodox spertulo. Near as I can recall in PIV, -ulo after a noun indicating this or that gender doesn’t mean what you think it does.

novatago:Anything changing the way the grammar works, and specially anything like this that just mess up the grammar, is to be rejected.

I agree that proposals to change the grammar are to be avoided. But -iĉ- wouldn’t alter the grammar any more than -ĉj- does. Patro, frato, etc. would still indicate male relatives. Words like amanto would be used as they often are already — non-gender-specifically. Nor would one be compelled to use -iĉ-; having both a masculine and feminine suffix could free one of having to use either.

You might well disagree with that assessment — I have no doubt that you will — but even if we both agree that ASCarroll’s query entails a heinous radical reform of the language, one could put aside the torches and pitchforks and simply say, “Nice idea, perhaps, but it changes the grammar, and no established language — not even a made-up one — can accept that.” Or “-iĉ- has been considered, but rejected in the PMEG.”

And this, ultimately, was the only real point I was trying to make — more guidance for the newbies, less hostility.

efilzeo:Why do you find this to be a lack?

Um, it’s a lack of symmetry because it isn’t symmetrical — there’s an affectionate suffix for both genders on the one hand, but a regular suffix for only one gender on the other hand. Why there should be a masculine suffix in one case but not the other might be a puzzler for anyone who’s own language does it differently.

Which is not to say that Esperanto must or should adopt a masculine suffix. All I’m suggesting is that when a new Esperantists asks about it, people could be less punitive in their response.

efilzeo:What is the point of hiding the sex of your partner? I thought gays wanted equal rights, not the right to hide themselves. So if you're gay are you ashamed to say that you have an edzo? If you are a son of a gay couple you are ashamed to say that you have two patroj or two patrinoj? What is the point of all that?

...If you are ashamed of your sexuality than just don't say anything about it or lie. You can easily say "my gepatrano" to say "parent" but what is the point of it? If you use such a word I immediately understand that your parents are gay because you're not using the common word "patro" or "patrino", so what is the point of it? Just say it as it is.

Easy, Borat. The expectation of symmetry has nothing to do with gender politics. It has to do with logic.

And maybe brevity. In English, many people have found it clumsy to have to say “he or she”, “his or hers”, and so on when discussing something that could apply to either gender, and over the years more and more people have taken to using they to mean a single person of unspecified sex. Wasn’t always that way. It certainly changes the grammar a little. But it’s become very commonplace — and no one marvels at how the language survived what in this forum might be deemed a new dialect of English.

efilzeo:Moreover if you really find this thing unacceptable...

I didn’t say that at all. I myself have no dog in this part of the fight. All I’m saying is that it’s easy to see why people would question the logic of words like virino, and that accusations of radical feminist politics, homosexuality, and linguistic sabotage are unwarranted and a little silly.

efilzeo:The suffix -ino is there only to specify the female gender, but it's not necessary. So if I see a female officer and I say "oficisto" I am grammatically correct, I don't need to specify that she's a female because I'm referring to his/her role, not his/her sex, which is exactly what the supporters of "iĉ" want.

It’s not necessary after -ist-, but it is in other cases. The presence of -iĉ- doesn’t mean having to specify everyone’s gender whether it’s relevant or not; it means not having to do it more often.

efilzeo:What is the point of hiding the sex of your partner? I thought gays wanted equal rights, not the right to hide themselves. So if you're gay are you ashamed to say that you have an edzo? If you are a son of a gay couple you are ashamed to say that you have two patroj or two patrinoj? What is the point of all that?

...If you are ashamed of your sexuality than just don't say anything about it or lie. You can easily say "my gepatrano" to say "parent" but what is the point of it? If you use such a word I immediately understand that your parents are gay because you're not using the common word "patro" or "patrino", so what is the point of it? Just say it as it is.

By the way, why does not specifying the gender of a relative mean to you that they’re gay?

In English, a minor is often obliged to obtain the signature of “a parent or guardian”. The people who want the signature aren’t particular as to which parent signs it, nor do they care if the parents are a same-sex couple, or if there’s only one parent, or whatever. They just want a signature from someone in charge.

morfran:

novatago:Are they learning a language or what?

I’m sure they’re trying to. Part of learning a language is asking questions about why things are this way or that. When ASCarroll and others ask about a neologism they read about somewhere, it doesn’t make them Idists; it makes them new Esperantists who don’t know that certain subjects and buzzwords will get them ganked in a forum.

Actually many of them are saying they are using reforms with no more questions because they read some “good” reason somewhere and/or they like it more. This is no the first time I discuss this. And for me this is the case. I already gave reasons to AScarroll in Esperanto to not use this thing and because of his insistence I can say he is here to convince everybody else to use it, not just to ask questions.

morfran:

novatago:And why is so hard to see other acceptable reasons just to leave it alone?

Being new to the language, they obviously haven’t seen any acceptable reasons yet. Probably why they asked.

Actually they more likely was confused by some reformist. This is the case.

morfran:

novatago:If someone need a neutral gender form for no-neutral word root just use the suffix -ul: patrulo, fratulo, edzulo, filulo. So, that argument just shows how the people talk without knowing the language enough.

Interesting solution from an orthodox spertulo. Near as I can recall in PIV, -ulo after a noun indicating this or that gender doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Well your recall perhaps is not so good. I've just read the meanings in PIV and I don't see any problem. Anyway, even if you would be right, it is an acceptable, totally understandable option with a real Esperanto suffix, not something incompatible wich is not in the grammar and it's not creating confusion with the gender system.

morfran:

novatago:Anything changing the way the grammar works, and specially anything like this that just mess up the grammar, is to be rejected.

I agree that proposals to change the grammar are to be avoided. But -iĉ- wouldn’t alter the grammar any more than -ĉj- does. Patro, frato, etc. would still indicate male relatives.

Yes it does alter the grammar because it's changing the gender system, so it's a grammar thing. And you don't understand how works that reform proposal because it riquires to change the gender of the roots with gender, and that's why it's not compatible. Did you read anything different? Well, just another reason to don't accept this thing.

morfran:You might well disagree with that assessment — I have no doubt that you will — but even if we both agree that ASCarroll’s query entails a heinous radical reform of the language, one could put aside the torches and pitchforks and simply say, “Nice idea, perhaps, but it changes the grammar, and no established language — not even a made-up one — can accept that.” Or “-iĉ- has been considered, but rejected in the PMEG.”

You haven't yet seen me with the pitchfork. I actually even don't need any torch.

morfran:And this, ultimately, was the only real point I was trying to make — more guidance for the newbies, less hostility.

That's ok and I trying it. But trust me, I've been kind.

Ĝis, Novatago.

morfran:When ASCarroll and others ask about a neologism they read about somewhere, it doesn’t make them Idists; it makes them new Esperantists who don’t know that certain subjects and buzzwords will get them ganked in a forum.

Re-reading this thread, I should say for the record that it wasn’t ASCarroll that brought up the dreaded neologism, but me.

I'm always amazed, but not surprised, by the amount of vitriol that comes from these questions and I can't help but wonder if it all boils down to the old prescriptionist versus descriptionist debate.

That experienced esperantistoj seem to believe the Fundamento to be some immutable fact (which conveniently the Boulogne Declaration declared) and any deviations from it should be shot down with extreme prejudice.

But then again, languages need to evolve with time, technology and people. Which (again, conveniently, the Boulogne Declaration declared) is why we have all these new words for technology and chemicals and countries - but they all follow and imitate the Fundamento.

So, shouldn't it be that if there is a need for new root, suffix, prefix, whatever, as long as it follows the conventions set forth in the Fundamento, surely that's acceptable?

As per this discussion, the use case for -iĉ- is limited, in my view. It's a nice idea to have a male suffix to go along with the female but I've never come a case where I would need it. Most words are neutered except for a handful and would only be needed for specificity.

But on the other hand, it follows the form and function of esperanto, so it's a reasonable extension of the language.

But that all just might be moot - language is how people use it. It doesn't belong Zamenhof, the spertuloj or even the akademio de esperanto (try as they might). If you find a need to express yourself in a way that can't be expressed already, then do so however you choose – just be sure to bring a fire extinguisher to put out the flames when you use it with a prescriptionist.

novatago:I already gave reasons to AScarroll in Esperanto to not use this thing and because of his insistence I can say he is here to convince everybody else to use it, not just to ask questions.
Actually they more likely was confused by some reformist. This is the case.

So I have to prove that I'm not, in fact, an ideologically corrupted, manhating, feminazi, crypto-Idist heretic bent on sabotaging the Cause to destroy the Fundamento to join the club first...? -.-

novatago:Well your recall perhaps is not so good. I've just read the meanings in PIV and I don't see any problem. Anyway, even if you would be right, it is an acceptable, totally understandable option with a real Esperanto suffix, not something incompatible wich is not in the grammar and it's not creating confusion with the gender system.

I'm not really sold on the suffix, tbh. It seemed like a good idea when it was brought up. Your -ul- suggestion also sounds like a good idea as well. It certainly makes sense, it works with current orthodox vocabulary, and doesn't come with all of the negativity and "manhater feminazi" baggage. I'm not totally sold on it, but it does make sense. Right now I'm still trying to figure out more important stuff though, like how to use this website (I just realized why I suddenly couldn't read anything anymore - turns out I accidentally switched it to Prussian somehow; I did learn I have a slight ability to comprehend it though) and whether or not I should be organizing my dictionary by root classes.

novatago:Yes it does alter the grammar because it's changing the gender system, so it's a grammar thing. And you don't understand how works that reform proposal because it riquires to change the gender of the roots with gender, and that's why it's not compatible. Did you read anything different? Well, just another reason to don't accept this thing.

Esperanto doesn't have grammatical gender though? That's one of the selling points of it. Anyway, the whole suffix business is really tangential to my original question of the point of using female man to mean woman and implication that I'd personally be more comfortable using ino and ulo as words in their own right as allowed by the rules rather than virino, viro, and homo. The heretical suffix would match that paradigm and fit well with what's already there in my personal opinion, but I'm still very much open to other ideas. Possibly keeping viro.[/quote]