eojeff:So, is use of na, like riism, a passing fad?

The thing that confuses me is that some people think that use of na is somehow an assault on the fundamento. While I agree it's at least arguably an innovation. To me, it's no more of an assault on the fundamento then, say, the relatively new suffix -end. Why? Because it's isn't invalidating -n it's putting forward an optional alternate form of it. But, that's just my opinion.

I suppose I could tolerate 'na' for non-Esperantized personal names, but never anywhere else... it just makes me have to think harder.

Of course, if I accept na for non-Eo-ized things as I have said, I guess I would have to accept other stand-alone replacements for all the parts of speech markers:

So Karen in the nominative would be 'o Karen', (or 'oa' maybe to balance 'na' by analogy.)

Could get silly fast.

sproshua:in order to avoid confusion when one has at least two proper nouns, one can use je to distinguish. Quinn amas je Casey, sed Casey je Quinn ne amas. i prefer that myself over tacking -on to the end. na is unnecessary. je does the job.

In cases like this it's standard to fall back on SVO word order, so there's no need to press "-on", "je" or "na" into service here. "Quinn amas Casey" is technically ambiguous, but not so much in practice.

tommjames:In cases like this it's standard to fall back on SVO word order, so there's no need to press "-on", "je" or "na" into service here. "Quinn amas Casey" is technically ambiguous, but not so much in practice.

using je may not be common at your E-o meetings, but there are several examples of it at tekstaro.com.

i always find it curious what rules the community here will let slide and which ones they'll burn down the forums defending.

While I agree it's at least arguably an innovation. To me, it's no more of an assault on the fundamento then, say, the relatively new suffix -end. Why? Because it's isn't invalidating -n it's putting forward an optional alternate form of it. But, that's just my opinion.

Actually it is more of a reform, and is arguably invalidating of established usage.

If the na-isto insists that we should say Casey konas na unu el viaj amikoj it does tend to invalidate established usage.

I would go further than Tom, and say that 'Quinn amas Casey' is not even technically ambiguous.

The fact that you can depart from SVO order where you can apply the accusative ending to the direct object (or the subject is a markable word and can be identified by the absence of the accusative marker) doesn't mean that sentences with proper names or other words that are not amenable to the addition of 'n' are meaningless.

The na-istoj seem not to have grasped that word order is not an alien syntactical device in Esperanto. There are countless examples in Esperanto where word order determines meaning.

So, is use of na, like riism, a passing fad?

riism is not a passing fad. gender neutrality around the world is a steadily growing movement and will continue to grow as the world becomes urbanized and as women gain more legal rights.

i can accept relying on word order at your discretion. i suppose that if you are consistent with your wording, even a slip like mi amas vi would be understood defaultly as i love you. but i wouldn't rely on it in any formal writings.

sproshua:riism is not a passing fad. gender neutrality around the world is a steadily growing movement and will continue to grow as the world becomes urbanized and as women gain more legal rights.

I wholeheartedly agree with the second sentence. But what does this have to do with the grammar of Esperanto, or riismo? Is the implication that Esperanto's grammar and word-building is sexist, and that riismo rectifies the situation?

Language can be used in a sexist way, and the tendency in many languages to use masculine as the default reflects a long-standing patriarchy. But no inherent structure of the language itself promotes sexism.

Is it sexist to speak a Slavic language, where the word "who" is male by default, and you cannot talk about anyone in the past tense without mentioning gender? In Romance languages, mixed company requires masculine adjectives. Nobody is proposing to reform those languages - such would be met by bafflement, which is my reaction to Esperanto reforms like riismo.

And Esperanto doesn't even have those asymmetries. Its only significant asymmetry is -in, which is reflected in many European languages already; and with the exception of a few nouns, -in is now optional, as the unmarked forms (amiko, instruisto, etc.) have evolved to be gender-neutral.

Elhana2:

Tempodivalse:Is it sexist to speak a Slavic language, where the word "who" is male by default, and you cannot talk about anyone in the past tense without mentioning gender?

It is. A language supposed to be neutral should not faithfully carry such leftovers from thousands years ago.
I never met 'virinstruisto', and 'instruistINoj' are very ubiquitous. It is easily to say the masculine words are somehow 'common gender' now, but for 99% of speakers they are not.

So I am a sexist in virtue of my first language being Russian? How nice ...

I view Esperanto as a living language. Its origins were unusual, but it now functions and evolves like any other language. So I view non-organic reform attempts like riismo to be as inappropriate and baffling as trying to force Russian to use the neuter as the default gender.

There's nothing stopping one from using -iĉ and ri in one's Esperanto, but you can expect about the same kind of reaction as if you were to use neologistic pronouns in English (like "xyr" ) or odd spellings (like "womyn" for "woman" ), and other people probably won't follow your example when every serious, example-setting authority indicates otherwise.

Elhana2:

Tempodivalse:Is it sexist to speak a Slavic language, where the word "who" is male by default, and you cannot talk about anyone in the past tense without mentioning gender?

It is. A language supposed to be neutral should not faithfully carry such leftovers from thousands years ago.
I never met 'virinstruisto', and 'instruistINoj' are very ubiquitous. It is easily to say the masculine words are somehow 'common gender' now, but for 99% of speakers they are not.

You're so right. I hate how the French keep calling tables girls.

Those pigs.

My table's a boy.

my point is merely that riismo and other such evolutions in languages are in no way "passing fad(s)"; they are gaining traction.

sproshua:my point is merely that riismo and other such evolutions in languages are in no way "passing fad(s)"; they are gaining traction.

Perhaps. That certainly hasn't been my experience, though (although my view of Esperantujo is only partial). I can think of no serious Esperanto publication that uses them, and I know of only one Esperantist who regularly uses -iĉ - out of a very diverse group of speakers.

From my perspective, iĉismo and riismo still look like the positions of a very small minority that the large majority of Esperantujo isn't interested in emulating. It reminds me of the few hold-out "at-ists" from the 1970s (who contend that -ata does not indicate continuity).