morfran:I think most anyone would agree that a Python 3.x reform — for Esperanto or any language — is to be avoided.

The Python3-thing is quite a good comparison. Many people don't like Python 3 for the fact, that it ain't compatible to older versions. But it's undeniable, that Python 3 is more modern than Python 2. It has certain features that make it superior to Python <= 2. I'm quite sure, that the day will come, that noone is using Python 2 anymore.

mofran:Part of the problem surrounding the backlash to the whole iĉ issue, it seems to me, is that some proponents have apparently been advocating an implementation wherein words like patro and frato would be neutered to mean “parent” and “sibling” — which would indeed be a backward incompatible approach.

But that isn’t the usual version of the proposal, in which iĉ would be just be another extension, not a revision, of existing vocabulary. In that strategy, wherever a word indicates a male, one would introduce a neuter counterpart (ex., genitoro for “parent”), to which one could add iĉ or in at one’s discretion. In some cases, existing words could do the job, like homo/homiĉo/homino in addition to viro.

Exactly. But the thing is: Some just take the Fundamento as a false argument to backup their unwillingness to accept such changes. So any laux-Fundamentaj proposals won't be accepted by them either.

novatago:… it offers, as usually, a solution for a no problem thing.

You can repeat this as often as you want, but that won't make it true at all. German has exactly the same asymmetric way of marking the sexus and it is a problem: Gender-Nazis keep whining about how sexistic texts are, that don't have "LehrerIn" (instruist/instruistino) in it, because they don't understand, that the "-er"-suffix is gender-neutral. Though i don't support their campaign, i agree that this causes confusion. My solution would be to just throw away the "-in"-suffix and accept, that if not explicitely shown a word does mark neither male nor female sexus. But since that is kontraux-Fundamenta, it wouldn't be accepted for Esperanto by the Fundamentistoj. And still they are not even willing to accept the other solution, which would be laux-Fundamenta. That's just stubborn.

Fenris_kcf:

novatago:… it offers, as usually, a solution for a no problem thing.

You can repeat this as often as you want, but that won't make it true at all. German has exactly the same asymmetric way of marking the sexus and it is a problem: Gender-Nazis keep whining about how sexistic texts are, that don't have "LehrerIn" (instruist/instruistino) in it, because they don't understand, that the "-er"-suffix is gender-neutral. Though i don't support their campaign, i agree that this causes confusion. My solution would be to just throw away the "-in"-suffix and accept, that if not explicitely shown a word does mark neither male nor female sexus. But since that is kontraux-Fundamenta, it wouldn't be accepted for Esperanto by the Fundamentistoj. And still they are not even willing to accept the other solution, which would be laux-Fundamenta. That's just stubborn.

As you point, the problem are feminazis, not the language. So there is no problem in the language. AND anyway in esperanto THERE IS A SYMMETRY, not the one wich feminazis would like, but still a simetry because Zamehof just chose a (valid) way to do it (viro - virino, patro - patrino… in contrast to viro - femo, patro - matro…) maybe (probably) to don't load esperanto with unneeded suffixes and word roots. Of course he could do it in a different way, but he didn't and feminazis are nazis because they are paranoid, not because they are always right. They choose randomly things to complaint without think if they are right or not.

I never heard a complaint from anybody about the word woman -> wo - man. I mean I know there are people complaining about gender things in the english language but I began with english when I was 11, now I am 37; I haven't heard a complaint about the word woman in 26 years. Maybe someone complaint about it but from my point of view, it seems that the same no problem, is not always such a problem.

Ĝis, Novatago.

morfran:...and the niggling problem that patrulo doesn’t actually mean “parent”.

In any case, I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else that you should use or not use iĉ. All I’m saying is that it’s not the rule-breaking, dialect-making, dirty bomb that people here have been making it out to be, that it’s no worse — or better — than any other proposed suffix that’s already been rejected by the PMEG, and that some people here should really take a chill pill before turning on their computer.

Or you are trying to convince everybody that you don't want to convince anybody while you soften with lies the suffix.

By the way you already said that patrulo doesn't mean parent and the prove you gave was to mention PIV definitions, I then checked PIV and I saw no problem with to understand that as parent. So, as I said before even if you were right, is a comprehensible word in the sense of parent, with real esperanto things. To be someone not trying convince anyone of what you say, you keep repeating things to much, aren't you?

Ĝis, Novatago.

novatago:I never heard a complaint from anybody about the word woman -> wo - man.

I thought we covered this already. But here’s Wikipedia’s explication of “woman”:

Wikipedia:In Old English sources, the word "man" was gender-neutral, with a meaning similar to the modern English usage of "one" as an indefinite pronoun. The words wer and wyf were used to specify a man or woman where necessary, respectively. Combining them into wer-man or wyf-man expressed the concept of "any man" or "any woman".

novatago:... I began with english when I was 11, now I am 37; I haven't heard a complaint about the word woman in 26 years.

Ignorance is bliss:

Wikipedia:"Womyn" is one of several alternative spellings of the word "women" used by some feminists. There are many alternative spellings, including “womban” and "womon” (singular), and "wimmin” (plural). Writers who use alternative spellings see them as an expression of female independence and a repudiation of traditions that define females by reference to a male norm.

novatago:AND anyway in esperanto THERE IS A SYMMETRY

Clearly, your notion of symmetry is in conflict with that of a lot of other people, who notice that there’s an affectionate suffix for both genders on the one hand, but a regular suffix for only one gender on the other hand. If you’re going to defend the existing order, you probably shouldn’t do it on the grounds of “symmetry”.

novatago:the problem are feminazis

What is it with you and that Borat-like Italian guy that the expectation of symmetry and logic must always be a spoke in the menstrual cycle of Esperanto-speaking feminazis?

novatago:Or you are trying to convince everybody that you don't want to convince anybody while you soften with lies the suffix.

No, I’m afraid my participation in this bizarrely fierce debate about the gender of the fairies that can sit on the head of a pin stems largely for my distaste for the dickishness in the name of linguistic tribalism that I’ve seen here, and for the absurd level of outrage and hysteria over a proposed morpheme in a language most people have scarcely heard of.

And for people like you, who seem so vested in being outraged, so much so that any rational discussion of iĉ is dismissed out of hand as a lie so you can go back to flailing feces at the Python 3.x strawman you seem so attached to.

novatago:By the way you already said that patrulo doesn't mean parent and the prove you gave was to mention PIV definitions, I then checked PIV and I saw no problem with to understand that as parent. So, as I said before even if you were right, is a comprehensible word in the sense of parent, with real esperanto things. To be someone not trying convince anyone of what you say, you keep repeating things to much, aren't you?

Well, by that same reasoning, you can keep claiming that patrulo is readily comprehensible as “parent”, but that won’t make it so. It literally means a person or entity characterized by fathers or fatherhood. Which, for a lot of people, kind of misses the point of “parent”.

Again, I don’t really care about iĉ per se. But let’s call a spade a spade. Esperanto, for all its virtues, is a little asymmetrical with its gender suffixes. Doesn’t mean it must be reformed, but let’s not pretend that there’s logic and symmetry where it isn’t.

Iĉ isn’t the real issue I’m interested in here — it could have been any one of ASCarroll’s list o’ questionable remedies — it’s your reaction to iĉ, and your understanding of ul, symmetry, logic, and the threat of radical, fish-on-a-bicycle feminism to Esperanto that have me chiming in with repeated rebuttals to your repeated claims.

I think at this point it doesn't really matter who's "right" and who's "wrong," and approaching it that way doesn't really help the community as a whole. What matters with a language is how well you'll be understood. Every Esperantist understands patro as parent, because that's what the (unamendable) constitution of the language says it means. Virtually no Esperantist would understand patricxo (literally male father) at all. That's the reason Esperanto can't change anyway, at least in the grammar. It can't be allowed to change, because change creates two ways of doing things, which leads to dialects, which leads to two different mutually unintelligible Esperantos, which defeats the very purpose of Esperanto. It's like how people (wrongly) changed the definition of koko from rooster to chicken. Koko is the same thing as virkoko. A hen is kokino. A generic chicken is kokulo. That's clearly how Zamenhof used it. That's how he intended it to be used. Using it differently essentially creates an Esperantido.

morfran:

novatago:Patrulo: Parent ... It have been always there under the nose of everyone

Where it’ll probably remain. After all, if “female father” doesn’t make logical sense to someone as “mother”, how would “father-person” make any more sense to them as “parent”? That, of course, and the niggling problem that patrulo doesn’t actually mean “parent”.

In any case, I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else that you should use or not use iĉ. All I’m saying is that it’s not the rule-breaking, dialect-making, dirty bomb that people here have been making it out to be, that it’s no worse — or better — than any other proposed suffix that’s already been rejected by the PMEG, and that some people here should really take a chill pill before turning on their computer.

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 prefix what "forum'", for example, does to the root list: just adding, not changing........because, frankly, I like the forms gepatro, gefrato, etc.

novatago:

Fenris_kcf:

novatago:… it offers, as usually, a solution for a no problem thing.

You can repeat this as often as you want, but that won't make it true at all. German has exactly the same asymmetric way of marking the sexus and it is a problem: Gender-Nazis keep whining about how sexistic texts are, that don't have "LehrerIn" (instruist/instruistino) in it, because they don't understand, that the "-er"-suffix is gender-neutral. Though i don't support their campaign, i agree that this causes confusion. My solution would be to just throw away the "-in"-suffix and accept, that if not explicitely shown a word does mark neither male nor female sexus. But since that is kontraux-Fundamenta, it wouldn't be accepted for Esperanto by the Fundamentistoj. And still they are not even willing to accept the other solution, which would be laux-Fundamenta. That's just stubborn.

As you point, the problem are feminazis, not the language. So there is no problem in the language. AND anyway in esperanto THERE IS A SYMMETRY, not the one wich feminazis would like, but still a simetry because Zamehof just chose a (valid) way to do it (viro - virino, patro - patrino… in contrast to viro - femo, patro - matro…) maybe (probably) to don't load esperanto with unneeded suffixes and word roots. Of course he could do it in a different way, but he didn't and feminazis are nazis because they are paranoid, not because they are always right. They choose randomly things to complaint without think if they are right or not.

I never heard a complaint from anybody about the word woman -> wo - man. I mean I know there are people complaining about gender things in the english language but I began with english when I was 11, now I am 37; I haven't heard a complaint about the word woman in 26 years. Maybe someone complaint about it but from my point of view, it seems that the same no problem, is not always such a problem.

Ĝis, Novatago.

Just as a side warning of sorts: thee may wish to avoid the term "feminazi" in English when speaking to American liberals, since its....popularity, for want of a better term, is directly from a rather odious radio personality who raises the hackles of even some conservatives. . No use "poisoning the well" so to speak.

AllenHartwell:I think at this point it doesn't really matter who's "right" and who's "wrong," and approaching it that way doesn't really help the community as a whole. What matters with a language is how well you'll be understood. Every Esperantist understands patro as parent, because that's what the (unamendable) constitution of the language says it means. Virtually no Esperantist would understand patricxo (literally male father) at all. That's the reason Esperanto can't change anyway, at least in the grammar. It can't be allowed to change, because change creates two ways of doing things, which leads to dialects, which leads to two different mutually unintelligible Esperantos, which defeats the very purpose of Esperanto. It's like how people (wrongly) changed the definition of koko from rooster to chicken. Koko is the same thing as virkoko. A hen is kokino. A generic chicken is kokulo. That's clearly how Zamenhof used it. That's how he intended it to be used. Using it differently essentially creates an Esperantido.

Once -icx was linked to -cxj- I did understand (the intended meaning of) such terms as patricxo, I just don't agree that they are esperanto, since, as I said earlier, to avoid superfluity not to mention the attendant change of the meaning of a Fundamenta root that invariably (at least in my experience) is proposed with -icx it must be termed kontrauxfundamenta.
As for thy "koko/kokino/kokulo", admittedly I've not really read a lot of Zamenhofa work outside the Unua Libro and bits of the Krestomatio, I'm afraid thee will have to provide citations for this supposed "how Zamenhof used it" claim before anyone will accept it as truth.

morfran:

novatago:By the way you already said that patrulo doesn't mean parent and the prove you gave was to mention PIV definitions, I then checked PIV and I saw no problem with to understand that as parent. So, as I said before even if you were right, is a comprehensible word in the sense of parent, with real esperanto things. To be someone not trying convince anyone of what you say, you keep repeating things to much, aren't you?

Well, by that same reasoning, you can keep claiming that patrulo is readily comprehensible as “parent”, but that won’t make it so. It literally means a person or entity characterized by fathers or fatherhood. Which, for a lot of people, kind of misses the point of “parent”.

Again, I don’t really care about iĉ per se. But let’s call a spade a spade. Esperanto, for all its virtues, is a little asymmetrical with its gender suffixes. Doesn’t mean it must be reformed, but let’s not pretend that there’s logic and symmetry where it isn’t.

Iĉ isn’t the real issue I’m interested in here — it could have been any one of ASCarroll’s list o’ questionable remedies — it’s your reaction to iĉ, and your understanding of ul, symmetry, logic, and the threat of radical, fish-on-a-bicycle feminism to Esperanto that have me chiming in with repeated rebuttals to your repeated claims.

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." It is true that German feminists attacked the title to the point where it is not used anymore, but given its positive origins their alleged cause for attacking it is a clear distortion of the truth. It is equally valid to argue that men are being treated unfairly in that they do not have a distinguishing suffix, especially since the assumption that words refer to male forms is slowly becoming outdated. Should "male-ists" also argue against the unfair use of "fraulo", which is clearly descended from a word that only described a woman?

I am quite tired of seeing people attempting to use Esperanto as a means to promote their _______-ist ideas and nothing else. Their threads rarely generate meaningful discussions and leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who read/participate in them. I would eat my shoe if anyone here is truly aiming to oppress women. It would clearly be a better system if we had neutral bases with both male and female suffixes, but we inherited "legacy code" and it makes zero sense to change when this minor inequality is practically meaningless. I don't personally see novatago's anti-feminism as equating to pro-male-dominance, but merely as a stand against a very biased viewpoint.