novatago:

erinja:Seriously, enough with the talk of "feminazis". It's insulting.

When I wrote the message I didn't see the rest of the conversation (and even after write it, I read only a part of a few messages) I only wanted to answer that part of that message and finish taking part in this thread because in this moment I'm tired of lies and senseless arguments which can not refute facts. But anyway, some people is talking again and again about sexism (maybe not collectives but individuals do, who really -wrongly- believe that) in esperanto. That's also insulting, and they are no stopping.

Ĝis, Novatago.

If you want to talk about arguments regarding sexism, that's fine. You can tell them politely that in your opinion, Esperanto's grammatical features don't make the language (or its speakers) sexist. But "feminazi" is an insulting word, and use of insults only lowers the level of the conversation. And speaking personally for myself, as a feminist, I wish people would stop conflating feminism with support for language reforms. The two topics are not linked.

Also -- Enough with the fascism talk on this thread. Seriously. Accusing people of being facists, nazis, etc. for their beliefs isn't ok, nor is it ok to use veiled language in the same vein (accusing others of "cleansing" the forum and whatnot). Any more such messages will be deleted.

dtgallagher:i see these "reform posts" as positive because it means there are a lot of new esperantists coming in. they just havent had enough exposure to its use to know what is a problem and what isnt. i posted a few months ago something reformy and was set straight very politely. that let me realize the lack of necessity of such musings. be polite, the moral is.

If I remember correctly, you posted your message to the Esperanto forum.

In my opinion, reform-related posts in the Esperanto forum are much more politely received than in the English forum. Posting in Esperanto means that someone has spent enough effort to learn to speak the language well enough to write their ideas in Esperanto; writing in English, in some cases, means that someone is posting about reforms before they have even learned to put together a few simple sentences in Esperanto!

Kirilo81:there is not a single reason for the grammar and especially the morphology to change. Not one.

With my following question I am not intending to criticise your statement, but I simply want to better understand your argument. Please correct me as soon as you spot some instance of bullshit in my post. We are all here to learn after all.
(I will use "genus" for the grammatical category of a word, and "sexus" for the biological attribute of a being.)

Why would the introduction of the morpheme "*-iĉ-" represent a change to Esperanto's morphology?

You and several other users here have stated that *-iĉ- would change the morphology. Why is that so?
In my very limited understanding of linguistics, morphology treads the usage of morphemes, mostly how morphemes are used to build words. Now if we proposed for instance to change the position of the root morpheme (e.g. virino -> *inviro), then I would see the morphology affected. Introducing a new lexical morpheme *-iĉ- which would work exactly as its counterpart -in-, I fail to see that the morphology is touched in any way.

Furthermore, Esperanto has no genus. "viro" is not a word of masculine genus, albeit its signifié is a person of male sexus. Cf. "Die Geisel[1] heißt Peter.", where Geisel is of feminine genus but refers to a person of male sexus. Hence, both -in- and *-iĉ- are not inflectional morphemes (as e.g. -as, -n, -j, etc) as they don't alter a grammatical category. They are not derivational morphemes, as they don't change the part of speech (as e.g., -o, -a, etc). They can act as root morphemes for example in the lexemes "ina" and "ino". From which I conclude that they are lexical morphemes. The introduction of a new lexical morpheme (be it "*iĉ" or "*forum" ) is a change to the lexicon, not affecting the morphology. As the introducting of a new piece of LEGO doesn't affect the way LEGO pieces are combined.

Even in the strong case of iĉ-ism, i.e. that all existing roots that are now used exclusively for male signifiés be changed to refer to both male and female, I think it is still an alteration of the lexicon and not of the grammar (Esperanto not having a category "genus" ).

Even the introduction of a new inflectional morpheme, let's say "*-es" for aorist or "*-iĵ-" for anti-passive, still wouldn't be a change to morphology. It would indeed be a change to the grammar, and at that a quite heavy one, but not inside the field of morphology.

In summary, I am of the opinion that the introduction of *-iĉ- would exclusively affect the lexicon (inside which certain groups are necessarily open, as you stated) and neither the morphology in particular nor the grammar in general.

What is your point of view?

[1] Haha, I just learned that "Geißel" and "Geisel" both exist, one being a whip, the other a hostage.

novatago:Read the last part in http://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/afiksoj/sufiks... under the title: Ĉu UL estas neŭtra aŭ vira?.

It says “the suffix root UL has the meaning ‘person’”, then gives the example “saĝuloj = ‘wise people’, whether male or female.” That is, it changes the meaning of the word from “wise” to “wise people”.

IN, on the other hand, “doesn’t change the basic meaning of the word, only adds the feminine meaning”.

For an example of UL used after an animal name, the Millidge dictionary gives the example azenulo “an ass, dolt, Mr. Long-Ears”, not “a donkey, whether male or female”.

* Edit: Further up on the same page you link to in the PMEG, are the examples azenulo (“a person similar to an ass, a fool”) and virulo (“a virile, manly man”).

Patrulo, then, if it means anything at all, might mean something like “father figure”. But not “parent”.

nornen:

Kirilo81:there is not a single reason for the grammar and especially the morphology to change. Not one.

[...]
Please correct me as soon as you spot some instance of bullshit in my post. We are all here to learn after all.

[...]

You and several other users here have stated that *-iĉ- would change the morphology.

Eeek, here's the first problem. I didn't say that and I have another opinion (see below).
The sentence of mine you cite above was meant as a general statement, and I should have been even a bit clearer: There is no purpose of grammar change (of course there are reasons, which can be determined after the change).

nornen:In my very limited understanding of linguistics, morphology treads the usage of morphemes, mostly how morphemes are used to build words. Now if we proposed for instance (a) that morphemes must implement vowel harmony (filo -> filino, but onklo -> *onklono), or (b) that euphonic bridges be introduced (*fiŝykapto instead of fiŝkapto), then I would see the morphology affected. Introducing a new lexical morpheme *-iĉ- which would work exactly as its counterpart -in-, I fail to see that the morphology is touched in any way.

Morphology (in the wider sense) is the grammar of the word, so word building affects morphology (i.e. morphosyntax - in the narrow sense morphology would apply only to the change of morphemes, something that doesn't occur in E-o at all except from -ĉj/-nj).
A suffixoid like -iĉ, being used usually as a bound morphem in word building is "more grammatical" (in my opinion there is no sharp division between grammar and lexicon, other linguists may disagree) than vir-, so would affect the grammar somehow, but you're right in the sence that word building lies at the crossroads of morphology, syntax and lexicon, it's not the same like introducing a new marker of number.

That said, I nevertheless see no norm collision in the introduction of -iĉ, there is nothing in the Fundamento forbidding the addition of any kind of elements - there are just some that need the approval of the Akademio, e.g. the list of personal pronouns in the Fundamento is complete (as shown by the definite articles used in French, English, and German). In my opinion -iĉ doesn't belong to this group, as it is no synonym to an existing root or rule, so one can just use it.
The problem is not that you're not allowed to use -iĉ, the problem is that it doesn't catch on.

In fact one could easily reach a (nearly) symmetrical system of gender expression in E-o, in conformity with the Fundamento:

1) Use ĝi as gender neutral pronoun, li for males, ŝi for females (as was intended by Zamenhof and is still in use with animals).

2) Introduce -iĉ as synonym of maskla and use it to mark gender neutral words (the majority of the words of humans and animals) as referring to males (junuliĉo, amikiĉo, instruistiĉo); this should be applicable even to female gender expressions like matrono, nimfo (nimfo → nimfiĉo as patro → patrino).

3) Introduce female roots for the words built of male gender root + -in (about 20 words for kin, noble titles and the animal names koko, kapro and bovo), so matr- for patr/in-, regin- for reĝ/in- etc. This is not kontraŭfundamenta.

4) (not really necessary) Introduce gender neutral counterparts to the gendered root from 3), e.g. parento for patro aŭ patrino.

All of this is feasible without breaking the Fundamento or even asking the Akademio for a permission.
If a large number of speakers would change its language usage this way, I'd follow them, but it doesn't seem so, and for myself the asymmetry in the gender expression of E-o is not that bad that I would start such an initiative (in fact most people arguing for a symmetrical system seem to think it would lead to more equality in the real life, but there is no such link between language and society).

Kirilo81:[...]

Thank you very much for this detailed post. I really mistinterpreted your post I quoted.

Also me, I am not advocating changes to Eo (like *-iĉ-) ex cathedra; in fact I am convinced when (or if) such changes happen, they will happen because speakers simply start to talk that way (as you call it: "catch on" ). You cannot change a language top-to-bottom.

Thanks, too, for not pointing out that both of my examples about affecting morphology were actually affecting phonology. (I have edited my post now, to give an example more directly related to morphosyntax).

However I disagree that *-iĉ- would be a bound morpheme. If it behaved like -in- it would be free in my opinion. It is free (or at least as free as it can get, requiring some derivational morpheme) in "ina" and "ino". (For example "ge-" would be bound in my book.)

nornen:However I disagree that *-iĉ- would be a bound morpheme. If it behaved like -in- it would be free in my opinion. It is free (or at least as free as it can get, requiring some derivational morpheme) in "ina" and "ino". (For example "ge-" would be bound in my book.)

Sorry, I misused the term because I didn't know a better in this case. -iĉ would not be a bound morpheme in the sence of morpheme classification in general linguistics*, but it would usually appear bound, i.e. as a non-core part of a morpheme construction.

*OK, in the other way it would still be a bound morpheme as it (like the majority of E-o roots) would need a syntax class ending (gosh, dunno a good English expression, in E-o I'd use vortkategoria finaĵo) in order to form a word. But unlike a classic bound morpheme it could be core of a simple word (see here for my understanding of the 13 morpheme classes of E-o).

nornen:(For example "ge-" would be bound in my book.)

Mmh, in fact gea is attested in the PIV and I would imagine that malgea, gee , gei and other derivatives have already been used sometimes, somewhere.

OK, sorry for nitpicking. You and Kirilo81 really had a very interesting discussion. Thanks to both of you!

morfran:The iĉ thing has been around for a long time and according to Wikipedia, has been used in some published works. So, too, have numerous other neologisms. And while they might not have gained general acceptance and may even be discouraged in the PMEG, some of them have been proposed so much around the net that they might indeed seem to be in vast use — and therefore “fair game” — to the learner. A forum of self-described spertuloj telling a new Esperantist that this or that neologism is not in fact in vast use might contradict what the new Esperantist has read elsewhere.

erinja:-icx- has been around for a decent amount of time and it STILL hasn't caught on. I don't know even one experienced Esperantist who uses it. For other reforms, I know maybe one or two, but for this thing, not even one. This should be a clue to the noob, but the noob would perhaps rather not listen, and instead believe a random list online.

From my understanding, the proposed -iĉ is a relatively commonly understood topic among active Esperantists. It's certainly not used within the evident vernacular, but I would hold that any Esperantist that took the time to read up on the language before/during/after learning the language would surely have at least heard of it.

Even beyond that, I believe it's more understood as a means to specifically distinguish things that are undeniably male (currently to place emphasis on something's "maleness" ). And that's where I suppose I would argue against you, Erinja. Though it may not be in use, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's not understood. (Of course, if it's not understood, then it's less practical. But what was less than five minutes of reading for me to comprehend it should be no trouble for experienced speakers.)

I think of myself as something of a transitioning komencanto (baza -> meza or thereabouts), but I'm very much in favor of utilizing -iĉ in conjunction with relegating normal nouns to being primarily gender-neutral. The symmetry is appealing to me and I would like to distinguish male things between neutral things in the manner I can with female things.

Out of respect for the language and the fact that I'm not yet a master speaker, I don't use it in regular speech, but I would completely comprehend what a person was saying were they to use it, so I see no reason to condescend to anyone if they tried to implement it in a place specifically for discussion. To staunchly fight it at the roots of discussion is effectively and actively trying to kill it (which is the intent, yes), in my opinion. To say "it's not in wide use", but to discourage the use will keep that as status-quo. If it's really as terrible as people make it out to be, then the users (supporting people) will catch on and abandon it after failing. I think it undervalues the intelligence of learners and speakers to not let them distinguish what works and doesn't as they constantly learn and adapt.

I still say this shouldn't even be a discussion, and I do not understand why this thread hasn't been locked after eighteen pages of pointless arguing back and forth. Esperanto is as Esperanto will be. Either you use Esperanto as it really is with respect to its existing community/speaker base and 125 years of tradition or you use some kind of invented new Esperantido nobody else uses but yourself. Either you use it to communicate and participate in global culture or you use a language you invented based on it that nobody else speaks to attempt to further some weird political agenda. That's what it comes down to, at least in what seems to be by far the majority opinion: do you respect the people who already know it and the community as a whole, or do you care more about trying to change (butcher) the real language to create some subjectively "better" version?

The OP was obviously in the latter category. Reading his/her few threads makes it clear that some misinformed person was just trying to propagandize for their Esperantido they were making up. They came to this forum and threw around baseless accusations about the language and proclaimed that they were going to use and advertise their Esperantido instead of the real language taught here. They were corrected and cautioned against giving a bad example for the real learners. They then took offense and refused to accept that correction, and instead began attacking the spertuloj trying to give them advice. They seem to have been entirely appropriately banned. Typical trolling, basically. That should have been the end of it, just as in every other case of this happening in the history of the forum. Just running a few cursory searches showed me that it's a stupidly common occurrence here. I'm frankly amazed that certain otherwise knowledgeable people here decided to buy into this particular example.

We don't need this -icx- suffix. It does not exist outside of the imaginations of a very few speakers who think that the cause for women's rights to equal treatment and pay will be furthered by fracturing the one worthwhile interlanguage. It's mad. And either way we already have suitable, universally understood terms for its proposed meaning in words like viro and masklo and their derivations. We don't need yet another highly obscure synonym just to replace perfectly good Fundamenta roots. That would be like trying to replace frato with siblingo or filo with cxildo. It's just pointless and will only make the language harder and parts of the Fundamento obsolete. The foundational specification document would no longer accurately reflect the language. The whole point of making it untouchable was so it would always do so. Without the Fundamento, we might as well be speaking Ido or Esperanto II or one of the legions of other half-baked rip-offs.