when i look up ge in the Vortaro i see that it's used to show that a group or couple consists of both males and females, but it says nothing about "ge-" being a neutralizer of sex or gender.
the only example i've found is gepatro for "parent" (well, father or mother).
there's no gefilo, no gefrato, no geavo, no geonklo, and so on.
so with only one example to lean on, why hasn't the Vortaro defined "ge-" as meaning of both sexes when plural and of no specified sex when singular? i have my own thoughts, but i want to hear what others think.

You're right in that ge does mean a mixed sex group, and that logically it can't be used in the singular. As it happens, there's no analogous way to speak generically of a single parent, sibling, or whatever, so sometime in the last thirty or so years people apparently started saying gepatro, logic be damned. I guess the demand to say "parent" has been higher than that to say "sibling", etc.

sproshua:why hasn't the Vortaro defined "ge-" as meaning of both sexes when plural and of no specified sex when singular?

Because that usage hasn't caught on sufficiently to warrant changing the definition. PMEG has some comments on this.

The ge prefix is used to show a mixed group of both genders.

There is no generally accepted way to show a mixed group of either gender.

There is no generally accepted gender neutral affix in either the singular or the plural.

This link describes how the iĉ suffix can be used to provide gender neutral words in the singular and plural, as well as providing male specific words in both the singular and plural, with no possible misunderstandings or confusion with exisiting words.

Be warned however, there is a certain element of resistance to the use iĉ .

Wow. I would never ever suggest that someone use -icx-, but I especially would not make this suggestion to a beginner who is still trying to learn the official language. You don't want to undermine the beginner's learning by suggesting highly controversial unofficial elements that are likely to provoke a negative reaction in people the beginner speaks to. I see that you gave a mild warning but it's like throwing the beginner into a nice, warm, inviting, shark-infested pool (um but just to let you know, the water might be slightly pointy!)

Bottom line - people use ge- to show a group of mixed gender and it is traditionally used only in the plural. Some people use it in the singular to indicate a neutral gender but this usage isn't very widespread and a lot of people don't agree with it. Use of -icx- is not likely to be understood in many offline circles, and if you use it and people do understand it, it's an excellent way to make people think that you agree with a ton of linguistic reform proposals, and these people will then never listen to another word you say.

erinja:Use of -icx- is not likely to be understood in many offline circles, and if you use it and people do understand it, it's an excellent way to make people think that you agree with a ton of linguistic reform proposals, and these people will then never listen to another word you say.

Apart of that, it would change the Fundamento and the people who think that it has advantages doesn't want to see the problems that it would create, not only because it isn't an esperanto grammar thing that it's not being teached, and its really unclear situation with more than one tricky proposals to use it, but also because it would obligate uselessly to learn two gender systems, in a language supposed to be easier to learn. To add a new gender system won't delete 127 years of texts and recordings.

In the worst of the cases, it's easier to say patro aŭ patrino or filo aŭ filino if needed, than to change the gender system.

Ĝis, Novatago.

sproshua:why hasn't the Vortaro defined "ge-" as meaning of both sexes when plural and of no specified sex when singular? i have my own thoughts, but i want to hear what others think.

That's a gap in Esperanto vocabulary, so if you want to use a word for “parent”, “sibling” &c., then don't hesitate to express it in any way, which is not against the Fundamento de Esperanto.

One method, which is undoubtedly laŭfundamenta, would be to replace every “parent” with “mother or father” (patro aŭ patrino), every “spouse” with “husband or wife” (edzo aŭ edzino) &c. One could say, that it's not a way of solving the problem of vocabulary gap, but rather avoiding it, arguably not in the most beautiful, nor most efficient way.

I'm glad you asked about the “ge-” idea, because that's the solution I personally prefer. Your intentions would be perfectly understood, when using “ge-” prefix also to singular nouns (gepatro, gefilo &c.). Some folks complain, that it is kontraŭfundamenta, referring to the definition of “ge-” prefix, which is given there: “of both sexes”. They (these complainers) would say, that since only a group of people (or, more generally, beings) can have attributes of both sexes, then it'd be illogical, to use this prefix to a singular form.

However, I would argue, let us imagine this situation: A teacher prepares an information sheet for the upcoming parents-teacher conference. Would our teacher give a second thought before beginning it with Karaj gepatroj? Lo and behold, because we've just used “ge-” to signify not a certainty of having attributes of both sexes of our plural recipient, but an uncertainty of having attributes of only one sex. Maybe only mothers will show up? Maybe only fathers? Shouldn't the teacher have written Karaj patroj, gepatroj aŭ patrinoj?… Therefore it's perfectly natural (or is it? It sounds pretty natural to me…) to extend given definition (and never to change it!) to the point, where the back formation of singular form (using fundamenta definition of “-j” suffix) is possible.

We're dealing here with an urge of having a single word (a whole class of them), which would have a meaning seen in nearly every language (so a ponderable one). Since I can't see any laŭfundamenta way of solving this problem, other than the two given above or introducing a completely new affix (what would be the meaning of it combined with plural “-j”? Maybe exactly something like patroj, gepatroj aŭ patrinoj ), then I'm sticking with gepatro, gefianĉo &c.

———

There also exist some solutions, which are purposely kontraŭfundamentaj. As “erinja” said, there is no point in teaching them to the beginner in Esperanto (well, I'm a beginner too!), because they are (by the very definition) not Esperanto. As Obi-Wan Kenobi once said: “It takes strength to resist the Dark Side. Only the weak embrace it!”…

mbalicki:I can't see any laŭfundamenta way of solving this problem, other than the two given above or introducing a completely new affix

There's also gepatrano, which is a laŭfundamenta albeit not particularly elegant solution.

Is it really such a big problem though? I don't recall ever actually needing to avoid the gender-specific 'patro' or 'patrino', or feeling that some other workaround like 'iu el la gepatroj' was too cumbersome.

just as a philosophical point: languages evolve with people. and a language which fails to evolve will die. words come and go. and as i understand it, Esperanto has evolved and will continue to evolve, so i'm not worried about offending conservatives.

though i do consider myself a beginner, i have a little over a year under my belt. and for the most part i've stayed away from discussions of this sort. i am familiar with iĉ and actually think it's quite brilliant and probably the best solution to addressing the concerns of the younger generation who are much more keen on gender issues.

all of that aside, and to refocus this thread: why is this exception to the rule present in the Vortaro of all places?

the rule
the exception

Vortaro.net is the online version of the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro. PIV is not an official publication of the Academy of the Esperanto, nor does it contain only words approved by the Academy. It is produced by a completely different organization, SAT (Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda). You will find everything under the sun in PIV, including words that most people would suggest not using. In fact, my personal standard of whether a word is only moderately unusual or way out there is whether it's in PIV. If someone's shady word is so shady that it isn't even mentioned in PIV, then it's truly shady indeed!

Interesting that you've mostly stayed away from discussion of this sort, though you were aware of the -icx- issue. Were you not aware that your question on ge- was likely to provoke a debate of this nature, or were you intentionally breaking your embargo on the topic?