i learned about iĉ very recently and had a long discussion with some about it. truly nerding out!

i thought it might come up, but since i started this thread, i will continue to try to make the issue about PIV online. it's a simple website which functions beautifully and has been recommended to me by many Esperantists. and so it carries a high level of influence.

sproshua: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.

Sure, languages evolve and so does Esperanto.

But besides being a language, Esperanto is a tool invented with a set of purposes and objectives; not a fixed one, but still well defined one. Therefore it comes with a set of general rules, which are guarding maintenance of these purposes and objectives.

No tool is perfect and no language is ideal, but since I'm using somebody else's invention, I personally feel obliged to do it in a proper way, and that is: in the way intended by the inventor.

Then again (and don't tell these “conservatives” about it ) I also like the “-iĉ-” infix. Definitely not in the iĉists' way, and rather as a synonym of “vir-” prefix, but one which is also perfectly symmetrical to female “-in-” infix.

erinja:Interesting that you've mostly stayed away from discussion of this sort, though you were aware of the -iĉ- 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?

I think it's perfectly justifiable, since both topics are interconnected; “-iĉ-” is also (while dealing with other things) a kontraŭfundamenta solution to the “ge- -o” problem.

I didn't say not justifiable, I was only curious about whether he or she was intentionally treading into territory that he or she had been avoiding previously.

On Vortaro.net - it's a descriptive and not a prescriptive work. You have to look at it like that. It has a lot of words, it has a lot of definitions, and it will definitely have words that you don't agree with (this is probably true of EVERY Esperantist - when you write in forums you write not only to individuals but to a general audience, right?).

Think of it this way. One might say that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a very well-respected American dictionary. People might suggest it to learners. Yet it contains the word "ain't", which is a word my mom always told me not to use. I'm not going to tell someone "Don't use this dictionary because it has a listing for 'ain't". Bottom line, every good dictionary will have words you don't like, because love them or hate them, people need to know what they mean when they encounter them. The Merriam-Webster analogy works well. PIV and M-W aren't the language police and they are not language academies. Just because a word is in there doesn't mean that you should or shouldn't use it. The purpose of a dictionary is that when you hear a word, you can look up that word in the dictionary and find an accurate meaning. These meanings may be contradictory because people are contradictory. If you are looking for Academy-stamped official definitions that make logical sense according to official Esperanto grammar, look at the official dictionary at the website of the Academy of Esperanto.

As far as I'm concerned there's no contradiction in PIV in this matter. Ge- is given with its Fundamental meaning (and is marked with an asterisk, since it is Fundamental). Gepatro is given with the only meaning you will ever find, for the people who happen to use that word. The very worst you could say about vortaro.net is that "gepatro" isn't marked with a symbol to say that this usage is frowned upon. But you can't expect them to update the definition of ge-, because the meaning of gepatro clearly deviates from the Fundamental meaning of ge-. So the choice is either (a) ignore that gepatro exists and don't show it in the dictionary [not a great idea because like I said, it's a descriptive dictionary and not prescriptive], or (b) have both gepatro and ge- listed, with their actual meanings, and let the speaker decide whether she agrees with using gepatro or not.

some of my concern comes from my desire to get friends and others i meet interested in Esperanto. when pitching the language i'd like to tell people that there are no exceptions. and surely with the basics of the language there are none. but the more i learn about Esperanto, the more i realize that there are some exceptions because it is a language that's evolving. so my pitch is that there are very few exceptions.

in the Eo-En-Eo dictionary by John C. Wells, (former?) president of La Akademio de Esperanto, he too includes "gepatro" as an instance of the prefix meaning "also sex unspecified" (pg. 47).

It's a language spoken by people, but the language itself doesn't have exceptions. Some people sometimes use the language in a way that isn't approved by the founding documents of the language. The fact that a limited group of a few people uses a word that doesn't totally hold up logically shouldn't be used as proof that the language is irregular, even if some of those people are very prestigious. Most Esperantists don't use the word and the Academy hasn't approved it. I feel like you can safely say that the language has no exceptions, and if someone asks you further you could certainly say that some Esperantists come up with innovations that contain exceptions, but that these innovations aren't in wide use and aren't approved by the language's governing body. You can certainly learn to speak a perfect Esperanto that contains no exceptions whatsoever, and be perfectly understood by everyone. This isn't true for a language like English, where you need irregularities just to talk about things being (am, is, are, being). You also can't take the opinion of one Academy member and apply it to Esperanto as a whole. Otherwise you'd end up with an incoherent mess, as Academy members don't necessarily agree with one another on these innovations.

I would also hesitate to tell people it's still eveolving. Strictly that is true, the way English is still evolving, but if you tell people "Esperanto is still evolving" it is likely to give them a false impression that it's a work in progress, rather than the correct impression that it evolves like every single living language evolves.

It has been a long time since I was in the habit of speaking about Esperanto to random people but when I speak of it today I emphazise the social and fun aspect more than the linguistic aspect.

sproshua:some of my concern comes from my desire to get friends and others i meet interested in Esperanto. when pitching the language i'd like to tell people that there are no exceptions. and surely with the basics of the language there are none. but the more i learn about Esperanto, the more i realize that there are some exceptions because it is a language that's evolving. so my pitch is that there are very few exceptions.

I don't quite understand why do you see this as an exception to the rule. (Even after great explanation given by “erinja”.) It's not the case, that “gepatro” is an exception to the general rule described in “ge-” entry.

It goes more like this: “ge-” has got its definition (provided by the Fundamento de Esperanto and described in PIV) and everybody accepts its usage with plural forms. Some (but not all) people either interprets it broader (the fundamenta definition, because the one in PIV leaves no room for interpretation) or broaden the definition (which is not mentioned in PIV. Maybe it should be?) and use it also with singular forms. Since PIV is meant to be a descriptive source, it includes a popular word “gepatro”. PIV stops there — it does not mention other “ge- -o” words.

Again: nobody claims, that “ge-” means anything different when attached to “patro”. Since Esperanto is indeed the language of no exceptions I can assure you, that any esperantist accepting singular “gepatro”, would also accept “gefilo”, “gefrato”, “geavo”, “geonklo” &c.

Urm…
I see why "hi" or "na" are kontraŭ-fundamenta, but why the heck should "iĉ" be?

EDIT: Take the following into consideration: In the first place "iĉ" is a root, meaning "male entity" when used as a noun. Since there is no other word, which already has that meaning, it does not cause a conflict. Further more it's always allowed to form composita; so a word like "frat·iĉ·o" would be permitted having the meaning "frata iĉo" or "iĉa frato". Now the only problematic thing is, that this would be redundant, since in classic Esperanto "frato" already is male. So it would be logic to make these roots gender-neutral in another step, but that's independent from "iĉ".

Fenris_kcf:I see why "hi" or "na" are kontraŭ-fundamenta, but why the heck should "-iĉ" be?

As an affix synonymous to “vir-”, “-iĉ-” does not contradict with anything in Fundamento. But there also exist a proposed reform of Esperanto, called iĉismo, which is obviously kontraŭfundamenta.

i feel some of you want me to ignore the fact that the PIV, an influential tool, in no way mentions the usage even though it is, as erinja said, "a descriptive and not a prescriptive work". it's amusing that while the Vortaro chooses to acknowledge the misuse of an affix with no explanation, some in the community will give it a pass while claiming that this is not a discrepancy.

imo, language cannot be separated from the people who use it, so i don't buy the line that a living language can be congruent even though its users are not. but that's a topic for another day. i'm signing off. thanks to all for your input. ĝis alia tempo.

Fenris_kcf:Now the only problematic thing is, that this would be redundant, since in classic Esperanto "frato" already is male.

Words using “-iĉ-” as an infix would indeed be redundant, but sometimes that redundancy is needed. That need was noticed at the dawn of Esperanto and satisfied by the “vir-” prefix. It generally concerns animals, following the pattern seen in some natural languages (“porko—porkino—porkiĉo” as polish “świnia—locha—knur”, “bovo—bovino—boviĉo” as english “cow—heifer—bull”, “koko—kokino—kokiĉo” as german “Huhn—Henne—Hahn” or “ĉevalo—ĉevalino—ĉevaliĉo” as french “cheval—jument—étalon”).

Fenris_kcf:So it would be logic to make these roots gender-neutral in another step, but that's independent from "iĉ".

That would be independent, but because these are always mentioned together, many people don't even consider using “-iĉ-” infix, however symmetrical and logical its usage (compared to “vir-”) would be.