mbalicki: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.

Of course. I don't like to see these words used in the singular but I accept the fact that i will sometimes hear and see them that way. I will always translate the sentence "You will need a note from a parent" as "Vi bezonos noton de unu el viaj gepatroj." However, I accept the fact that some people will use "gepatro" in the singular and that if enough people use it that way, it will eventually become more and more acceptable. That's just the way that languages slowly evolve over time, like it or not.

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

Because it does change the Fundamento. It changes the gender system and that isn't a small change. The thing about not touching the Fundamento is related to usability, not related with to be conservative, and the untouchablity is not against real evolution.

And apart of that I don't see the point of making more difficult the grammar “solving” a no-problem (it's just an invented problem, or something about likes and dislikes, not a real problem and 127 years of use prove that) adding uselessly things, if you have to convince people that Esperanto is easier than other languages and later you obligate them to learn a classic grammar and a modern grammar. Don't try to convince anyone that reforms would stop only in those that you, me or anyone else were agree with. And remember that most of the people don't learn a language like this to be attached to a grammar book forever.

And anyway, there are much better “solutions” for this no-problem, wich aren't touching the Fundamento.

Ĝis, Novatago.

sproshua: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.

Depends on what you mean by a discrepancy. The dictionary is also written by people, and they don't necessarily take the time (or the space, PIV has been a paper book only for most of its existence) to make a complete explanation for every word. People have their own priorities. An old version of PIV had the following definition of "Vieno":
1) A city in France
2) A river in France
3) The capital of Austria

...the definition has been re-ordered, in the present version, to put the capital of Austria first. But we all need to be aware that people wrote the documents we refer to, and these people have their own priorities. We sometimes assume that a lot of thought went into certain choices, when in fact it could be a result of inertia or laziness or whatever (or genuine thought!). Just because an old edition of PIV put the city and river in France before the capital of Austria doesn't mean that most Esperantists at the time would think of France if someone said "Vieno".

For most languages in the world, native speakers are considered authoritative when it comes to what is and isn't correct (and even then, there is an educated language and a colloquial language). In Esperanto, our standard of what is considered correct is the Fundamento, not the native speakers, and not the speech patterns of a random Esperanto speaker that we pull out from a convention. You can have a different opinion if you want, but you should be aware that this is the prevailing view in the world of Esperanto. Plenty of teachers use certain language forms in their own private speech that they would never teach to a class; the "book language" is considered the most correct.

erinja:In Esperanto, our standard of what is considered correct is the Fundamento, not the native speakers, and not the speech patterns of a random Esperanto speaker that we pull out from a convention.

As a non native in english language, I can't choose a good enough expression to say how well explained is thing in theese lines.

Your whole explanation is impeccable.

Ĝis, Novatago.

novatago:

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

Because it does change the Fundamento. It changes the gender system and that isn't a small change.

How? Adding a root for a concept, whic is not represented by another rooot, is not kontraŭ-fundamenta, is it?

novatago:(lots of other rant-stuff …)

See, i was just talking about adding the root "iĉ", not about reforming Esperanto, so keep cool.

novatago:It changes the gender system and that isn't a small change.

The gender system has already changed. Some of that change was brought on by Zamenhof himself (i.e. vir first as a suffix, later as a prefix), but most of it by common usage (ex. ant, ul, ist are usually gender-neutral nowadays, but weren’t in the beginning, and even some kinship words are becoming gender-neutral). Some literature and aphorisms from earlier periods don’t make sense anymore unless one re-interprets them in the older, everything-is-masculine way.

novatago:127 years of use

This idea that the usage is, was, and will always be monolithic and unchanging has no basis in fact.

erinja:In Esperanto, our standard of what is considered correct is the Fundamento, not the native speakers, and not the speech patterns of a random Esperanto speaker that we pull out from a convention.

Since Esperanto already has an affix for conveying masculinity — the prefix vir, itself a later innovation introduced in the 20s — the idea of an alternative gender affix that doesn’t also mean “adult human male” can be no more kontraŭfundamenta than frida alongside malvarma, or any other new word. It’s hardly the “ni!” from Monty Python that some people seem to think it is.

morfran:

novatago:It changes the gender system and that isn't a small change.

Some of that change was brought on by Zamenhof himself (i.e. vir first as a suffix, later as a prefix),

Only because of this, you make me think that you don't see the diference between system and meanings of roots and/or words. To add a sense to vir is not to change the system, it didn't change anything in the system. Also you should mention references about some things you say, because vir was a root, not an suffix. Maybe in some moment someone tried to use it as a suffix, I don't know but anyway it wouldn't the change the system…

morfran:but most of it by common usage (ex. ant, ul, ist are usually gender-neutral nowadays, but weren’t in the beginning, and even some kinship words are becoming gender-neutral). Some literature and aphorisms from earlier periods don’t make sense anymore unless one re-interprets them in the older, everything-is-masculine way.

…because it's easy to see that those words (except maybe -ul) have been always both male and gender neutral, the same as in other languages. Even, in my opoinion family words (patro, filo, avo…) were that kind too. I can not prove that about family words and anyway is interesting to see that in lingvaj respondoj is impossible to find a word about that, while the gender thing is an often subject there.

morfran:

novatago:127 years of use

This idea that the usage is, was, and will always be monolithic and unchanging has no basis in fact.

Since this is taken out of context, it doesn't refute my point.

morfran:

erinja:In Esperanto, our standard of what is considered correct is the Fundamento, not the native speakers, and not the speech patterns of a random Esperanto speaker that we pull out from a convention.

Since Esperanto already has an affix for conveying masculinity — the prefix vir, itself a later innovation introduced in the 20s — the idea of an alternative gender affix that doesn’t also mean “adult human male” can be no more kontraŭfundamenta than frida alongside malvarma, or any other new word. It’s hardly the “ni!” from Monty Python that some people seem to think it is.

[/quote]So we already have something to use. Ok, it seems you don't like it. That's all your point and all the “need” for any change for this. No mention that you are ignoring the problems of the reform you want.

Ĝis, Novatago.

Fenris_kcf:

novatago:

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

Because it does change the Fundamento. It changes the gender system and that isn't a small change.

How? Adding a root for a concept, whic is not represented by another rooot, is not kontraŭ-fundamenta, is it?

You have to change the gender of a whole group of existing words to make sense the needing of that. Itself alone as a root, it's just useless, nonsense and actually confusing because of the proposal of changing the root of the family words. Actually the searching of a way to impose the suffix is just a making it a worse and worse idea all the time because it just add confusion.

I almost forget to say that the concept when is really needed, it does already represented by vir (just read PMEG, even Morfran knows that). So…

Ĝis, Novatago.

When I was teaching Esperanto in evening classes in Germany, we made a game out of attaching suffixes to things that were not meant to be adorned by them. So I was explaining the word "taso" one evening and a student said "tasino". Ah, yes! So then we had "getasoj" and "tasidoj". It was really quite amusing. Now, I guess, we could add "tasiĉo" to the list!

novatago:Only because of this, you make me think that you don't see the diference between system and meanings of roots and/or words.

By “system” in this case, I’m referring to the principles and procedures by which gender is conveyed in Esperanto. According to the Plena analiza gramatiko, early Esperanto had no word for “male”; the absence of in made a thing male. Later Zamenhof used the root vir as a suffix to indicate masculinity (ex. bovoviro “bull”), but came under criticism because such compounds sounded like mythological creatures (“bull-man”). So later he changed his method for indicating masculinity by using vir as a prefix instead (ex. virbovo), which didn’t really address the problem (“man-bull”), but is still the usage we have now.

novatago:it's easy to see that those words have been always both male and gender neutral

Unless you look into the matter, when you’ll find that this isn’t true.

novatago:127 years of use

You’ve pointed to 127 years of use a couple times in this thread (and numerous times elsewhere) as proof that there are no real problems in the language and that the language has never changed on account of its already being perfect. But on this issue alone, Zamenhof himself has altered his method for indicating gender twice, which both indicates change and problems that needed addressing.

novatago:No mention that you are ignoring the problems of the reform you want.

Again, a new affix that does what vir already does but without the ambiguity is no more a “reform” than frida is.

As for my wanting this or that new word, I’m actually indifferent, as the language is an academic one for me. My wrangling over this issue has less to do with the issue itself and more to do with people’s Islamist-like reactions to some words, as if asking “what’s this iĉ suffix about?” were tantamount to crapping on the Koran.

novatago:You have to change the gender of a whole group of existing words to make sense the needing of that.

As I mentioned, the gender of whole groups of words have already changed, and more are changing even now (ex. kuzo is reportedly becoming epicene). The system you fight so tirelessly for is neither the original one nor the one in use now.

novatago:[iĉ] alone as a root, it's just useless, nonsense and actually confusing

If that’s true, then so is vir-.