Doktoriĉo sounds similar doktoraĉo, may be thus they don't like -iĉo. Sinjoro Doktoro may be shortened S-ro D-ro in writing.

sergejm:Doktoriĉo sounds similar doktoraĉo, may be thus they don't like -iĉo.

Does it really? I mean: sure, it differs only by one letter, but the sound similarity between “-iĉ-” and “-aĉ-” is exactly the same as between “-in-” and “-an-”, and quite like between “-ig-” and “-eg-”, “-er-” and “-ar-” or “-ej-” and “-uj-”.

So if anyone is worried about possible mishearing, then fear not, because there is no reason why people should confuse high front vowel with low central vowel. If, however, one is worried about mental associations, then it's certain, that these will pass after few times of hearing and using “-iĉ-” forms. It's like with the words puto and putino — dealing with them for the first time may indeed be confusing, but after some time nobody mentally associates these two nouns with each other.

sergejm:Sinjoro Doktoro may be shortened S-ro D-ro in writing.

Shortened in writing, but not in speaking. And not symmetrical to its female counterpart, unless you'd advocate against using “doktorino” and for reaplacing it with “sinjorino doktoro” (f + m/n = ?!) or “sinjorino doktorino”.

mbalicki:
Sure, if I was to talk about a doctor who happens to be male, in the vast majority of cases doktoro would be totally sufficient. However, if my statement would require me to emphasise male sex of the doctor, I wouldn't consider structures such as ambiguous vira doktoro nor animal-sounding virdoktoro nor unnecessarily long sinjoro doktoro, but I'd go with the fully symmetrical doktoriĉo.

If someone want to emphasize something in esperanto, that one does it in esperanto, not in the dialect that one likes.

To say that is like to say: ok maybe only a few people will understand me, but I rather that than maybe (in a very remote possibility) being ambiguous. So solved problem, isn't it? What an argument!

In cases like this my grandmother used to say “go to the bed to sweat”.

Do you want to be clear esperanto? Just speak esperanto. To be clear in a language depends on the knowlegge of the languge you have and the capacity you have to express yourself. If you don't have both, you won't be clear even if you use the most precise words you saw in a language. Definitely, to be clear is not use things that no one knows, or using things that seems very useful but in their very well intention of solving a no problem, they create some real problems.

Ĝis, Novatago.

novatago:If someone want to emphasize something in esperanto, that one does it in esperanto, not in the dialect that one likes.

I don't quite understand what do you mean here by saying “dialect”. I'd say, I'm not breaking any rule provided by the Fundamento, therefore what I'm using is Esperanto and nothing less. However, if by “dialect” you mean “anything beside the official vocabulary and grammar, not having the recommendation of AdE”, then why I don't see you condemning on this forum people for using “-i-” to create country names?

I've got no problem with you having your own language preferences.
But don't present your “I'd rather”s as the objective truth.

mbalicki:

novatago:If someone want to emphasize something in esperanto, that one does it in esperanto, not in the dialect that one likes.

I don't quite understand what do you mean here by saying “dialect”. I'd say, I'm not breaking any rule provided by the Fundamento, therefore what I'm using is Esperanto and nothing less. However, if by “dialect” you mean “anything beside the official vocabulary and grammar, not having the recommendation of AdE”, then why I don't see you condemning on this forum people for using “-i-” to create country names?

I've got no problem with you having your own language preferences.
But don't present your “I'd rather”s as the objective truth.

It is most certainly a dialect if you are using non-standard speech. Comparing American English and British English there are dozens and dozens of different words for the same objects, and Southern US vs Northern US dialects differ in the use of nonstandard "y'all". The iĉistoj may not be a regional dialect, but they form a dialect all the same.

I have not seen anyone complain about the use of the -i- suffix, but it is not a good comparison because it is in common use by virtually all Esperantists as far as I can tell. And it solves issues like the city name vs country name dilemma.

Would it be wrong to say "Doktoro" for a female doctor or should it always be "Doktorino"?

so it seems the answer to your question is double-sided.

if you are being true to Esperanto's original form, however antiquated as it seems, then yes, it would be wrong.

sanigisto = male doctor
sanigistino = female doctor
sanigistoj = a group of male doctors
sanigistinoj = a group of female doctors
gesanigistoj = a group of doctors, mixed sex
sanigisto aŭ sanigistino = doctor of unknown sex = ina aŭ malina sanigisto
sanigistoj aŭ sanigistinoj aŭ gesanigistoj = a group of doctors of unknown sex = inaj aŭ malinaj aŭ geaj sanigistoj

at least, this is my understanding.

if you know that your audience is progressive and agree that all roots should be considered sex-neutral, then say it however you think makes the most sense, and good luck.

Alkanadi:Is it necessary to always use -in- when describing people?

no

Alkanadi:Would it be wrong to say "Doktoro" for a female doctor

no

Alkanadi:or should it always be "Doktorino"?

no

> sanigistoj aŭ sanigistinoj aŭ gesanigistoj = a
> group of doctors of unknown sex

Absurdly complicated way to express a simple thing - group of doctors.

> Doktoriĉo sounds similar doktoraĉo

Tiam fisxajxo = fisxacxo = fusxa fisxo, ne mangxu, se vi volas ankoraux vivi morgaux

The more people use the "-in" suffix, the more problems in the language. | Ju pli oni uzas la sufikson "-in", des pli da problemoj en la lingvo.

Neniu "-in" + neniu "ge-" + neniu "-icx" -> neniu seksisma problemo pri substantivoj. (no sexism problem with substantives)

Clarence666:Absurdly complicated way to express a simple thing - group of doctors.

i don't disagree, but i imagine this sort of thing was hardly an issue at the end of the Victorian era. even forty years ago. i recently watched a video of Leonard Bernstein conducting the London Symphony Orchestra in 1974. there was not one single woman in that orchestra!

jean-luc:I checked with the lernu dictionnary, la simplavortaro and vortaro.net. -ICX is either not recognized or recognized as non official (and vir- is advised to be used).

the only dictionary carrying any prescriptive weight is the Universala Vortaro which is part of the Fundamento de Esperanto. there are many words used today which are not in there. all other dictionaries are merely describing popular usage or have some other agenda.

Clarence666:The more people use the "-in" suffix, the more problems in the language. | Ju pli oni uzas la sufikson "-in", des pli da problemoj en la lingvo.

Then, why does -in exist if it causes increasing problems in the language with increasing use?