orthohawk:
Is there precedent for expanding the meaning of "ge-" to include (the similar) "gender neutral version of the singular root word", and therefore making "gepatro" an acceptable form? This way we're just doing to a suffix what "forum'", for example, does to the root list: just adding, not changing........because, frankly, I like the forms gepatro, gefrato, etc.

I like this idea, and would readily interpret "gepatro" as parent since it is a logical extension of the abilities of 'ge-'.

"gepatro" and "gefrato" are forms that you do see around, and if I had to put money on any one language change to get a neutral form, this is the one I'd put my money on. It maintains the backwards compatibility, as it were, to maintain "patro" as a father, rather than redefining it as "parent". It is a phenomenon that is well-known enough to merit special mention in PMEG. It's worth noting that Bertilo doesn't specially mark it as "evitinda"; he says that some people see these forms as strange and illogical, but that they could be useful; he then says that the future will see whether this usage catches on or not.

I agree with the aforementined statement that "feminazi" shouldn't be used here. It is offensive and it is not really a true statement, anyway. Feminists in the Esperanto world don't really go after language changes, and most people who complain about gender issues in Esperanto grammar seem to be more interested in the language being fully logical (= symmetrical endings for male and female, base word is always neutral) than interested in actual feminism (= equal rights and opportunities for women). I have yet to see a language reformer who cares a lot about gender endings lobby for more women in high positions in the Esperanto world. It gets a bit old, seeing people refer to these language reforms as a "feminist" position when really language reform has nothing to do with feminism.

erinja:
I agree with the aforementined statement that "feminazi" shouldn't be used here. It is offensive and it is not really a true statement, anyway. Feminists in the Esperanto world don't really go after language changes, and most people who complain about gender issues in Esperanto grammar seem to be more interested in the language being fully logical (= symmetrical endings for male and female, base word is always neutral) than interested in actual feminism (= equal rights and opportunities for women). I have yet to see a language reformer who cares a lot about gender endings lobby for more women in high positions in the Esperanto world. It gets a bit old, seeing people refer to these language reforms as a "feminist" position when really language reform has nothing to do with feminism.

That is very true, and those who use feminism/equal-rights arguments to support their reform proposals are doing the the real equal-rights movement a great disservice. I have seen some claim that Esperanto is "sexist", but I'm not sure if that is only referring to the dissimilar treatment of male/female endings in the language or that this difference is somehow an unjust treatment of women.

It is more of a word-choice thing than anything. I take no offense to "Hey, wouldn't it be better/easier if we had gender-neutral words with endings for male and female versions," but I find "It is unfortunate that Esperanto is sexist so I'm going to use unofficial grammar to correct it" to be quite personally offensive and also belittling to equal-rights in general. In my relatively short time here I have seen primarily the latter form of this argument (from those who instigate the discussion, anyway).

erinja:
I agree with the aforementined statement that "feminazi" shouldn't be used here. It is offensive and it is not really a true statement, anyway. Feminists in the Esperanto world don't really go after language changes, and most people who complain about gender issues in Esperanto grammar seem to be more interested in the language being fully logical (= symmetrical endings for male and female, base word is always neutral) than interested in actual feminism (= equal rights and opportunities for women). I have yet to see a language reformer who cares a lot about gender endings lobby for more women in high positions in the Esperanto world. It gets a bit old, seeing people refer to these language reforms as a "feminist" position when really language reform has nothing to do with feminism.

There was a WONDERFUL article in the ELNA "EsperantoUSA"....or was it "La Bulteno".....anyway, about 15 or so years ago refuting the whole idea Esperanto being sexist. Is anyone here old enough to remember?

I don't know, but taking into consideration that ge' is defined as of both sexes, the word gepatro sounds to me like an autogamous, hermaphrodite parent.

nornen:I don't know, but taking into consideration that ge' is defined as of both sexes, the word gepatro sounds to me like an autogamous, hermaphrodite parent.

yes, it has that meaning because it's used on PLURAL words. If we expanded its meaning to include using it on a singular noun to denote "the gender neutral form of the root"..........................

orthohawk:

nornen:I don't know, but taking into consideration that ge' is defined as of both sexes, the word gepatro sounds to me like an autogamous, hermaphrodite parent.

yes, it has that meaning because it's used on PLURAL words. If we expanded its meaning to include using it on a singular noun to denote "the gender neutral form of the root"..........................

Thanks for the explanation. So the idea would be: ge' means of both sexes when used in plural, and of any sex when used in singualr"? Am I getting this right?

kaŝperanto:… I'm not sure if it is the true origin, but might the '-in-' suffix not come from the German "fräulein", which was an honorific title for an unmarried woman? Wikipedia indicates that "An honorific title is a word or expression with connotations conveying esteem or respect when used in addressing or referring to a person." …

Hmm, actually it's "Fräu-lein", where the suffix "-lein" is similar to the Esperanto-suffix "-et". I couldn't find the etymology of the German suffix "-in". Gotta look deeper into the web…

> "femnazis"
Actually i'm the one to blame here, since it was me first using the word "gender-nazi" in this thread.

> suffix "ge"
Using "ge" doesn't solve the asymmetry-issue; it would make it even worse because of the ~25 roots, that are immanently male. "bovoj" and "gebovoj" would mean the same, but not "patroj" and "gepatroj".

> (offtopic) @ orthohawk
Since i'm not a native English-speaker, i not sure about these things, but could it be, that you mix up the usage of "thou" and "thee"?

I don't understand why people have made ten pages out of this total non-issue. The Esperanto word for father is patro. The word for mother is patrino. The word for a bull is bovo, and a cow is a bovino. It's not a hard principle. There's a common gender and a feminine suffix. Many other languages are set up like this too. Those languages are capable of change. Why not rant about how German is sexist and try to change that language instead? It'll be just as pointless, but at least German doesn't have a set in stone Fundamento. There's no point in trying to change it. Esperanto is what it is, and there is a good reason for that. If someone doesn't like Esperanto, then they can find another language to sabotage.

AllenHartwell:I don't understand why people have made ten pages out of this total non-issue. The Esperanto word for father is patro. The word for mother is patrino. The word for a bull is bovo, and a cow is a bovino. It's not a hard principle. There's a common gender and a feminine suffix. Many other languages are set up like this too. Those languages are capable of change. Why not rant about how German is sexist and try to change that language instead? It'll be just as pointless, but at least German doesn't have a set in stone Fundamento. There's no point in trying to change it. Esperanto is what it is, and there is a good reason for that. If someone doesn't like Esperanto, then they can find another language to sabotage.

No one still active on this thread is talking about changing Esperanto. We are talking about how to respond to people who are interested in changing Esperanto, and we are also talking about ways to express certain concepts within the bounds of the traditional language. Seems to me like the discussion is pretty friendly and respectful at this point. If you are bothered or bored by a friendly and respectful conversation about a topic that doesn't interest you, this forum has a lot of other threads that you might enjoy more (or you are very welcome to start your own!).