Kirilo81:Zamenhof has consciously hidden ci en the Ekzercaro, because he didn't want it to be used.

Doesn't that sound pretty round-about, when he could have just not put it in there at all? I mean, are you listening to yourself? You sound like an evangelist trying to justify the contradictions in the Bible.

Also, I'm not sure what world Lernu members live in where "mojosa" is not a widely accepted and used word in Esperanto, opposed only by a few people who don't know what they're talking about.

leporinjo:

Kirilo81:
The Fundamenta Gramatiko clearly states that no pronouns can be added

It doesn't say this clearly; if it says this at all then it does so cryptically. I believe if Zamenhof wanted to say it clearly, he would have said it explicitly. There are so much easier ways of saying that no pronouns can be added. Like, for example, actually saying so.

French: "Les pronoms personnels sont"
English: "The personal pronouns are"
German: "Die persönlichen Fürwörter sind"

Definite article, not indefinite!

The FG stems from 1887, when ci did not yet exist, it was introduced in 1888 as an addition because of demand from early speakers. I quote from the blog post I cited above:

"Fruaj esperantistoj demandis pri formo por du, tu, ty ktp. kaj urĝis ties enkondukon. Zamenhof ne trovis ĝin "oportuna", tamen anstataŭ kategorie rifuzi ĝin, li - kiel kutime sufiĉe liberala - ja kreis ĝin, sed ruze ŝovis ĝin randen, eĉ malkonsilis ĝin. Formale li - elmontrante kompromisemon - faris paŝon direkte al tiuj, kiuj postulis iun ci - aŭ pli klare dirite, kiuj kritikis Z., ke li "forgesis" ci."

There are contradiction in the Fundamento, as its parts stem from different times and are written in different languages. The Antaŭparolo clarifies how to deal with linguistic problems, you can't expect the Grammar etc. to give metagrammatical commentaries, especially considering the style of the late 19th century.

And one other thing: Language is language and not life, the existence of queer people in no way depends of the fact, whether a given language has a special pronoun for them or not.
The problem in Esperanto is not the lack of clear rules what is feasible and what not, but the lack of knowledge how to apply the rules, even among Akademianoj, unfortunately.

I have no clue what your sentence on "mojosa" has to do with all of this.

Fenris_kcf:

1Guy1:I see this has escalated. I have not read all the posts. All I was doing in my original post was expressing my deep amusement at seeing a reform posting within 2-3 days of Duolingo Esperanto being on line.

I think it was obvious, that this would happen. And i appreciate it, since it shows the desire and need for a language, that is not only easy to learn, but also carries a mood of equality. IMO that can't be achieved with the ~20 male roots and the asymmetry in sexus-suffixes and personal pronouns. So it's just logical to critize these.

Duolingo and other ressources for learning Esperanto should really have a section where people can inform themselves about the usual reform-proposals, even if it is just to eliminate the impression that these are somehow secret or evil.

Esperanto is what it is. The work of a 19th century European polyglot.

And it ain't what it ain't. Gender free, or symmetrical. The self appointed defenders of the one true faith will ensure that anyone who dares suggest that this be changed will be attacked, criticised, ridiculed.

Fortunately. there is a solution. Forget Esperanto, learn Ido. Ido delivers what Esperanto only promises, a symmetrical, gender free, easy to learn language.

Bemused:

Fenris_kcf:

1Guy1:I see this has escalated. I have not read all the posts. All I was doing in my original post was expressing my deep amusement at seeing a reform posting within 2-3 days of Duolingo Esperanto being on line.

I think it was obvious, that this would happen. And i appreciate it, since it shows the desire and need for a language, that is not only easy to learn, but also carries a mood of equality. IMO that can't be achieved with the ~20 male roots and the asymmetry in sexus-suffixes and personal pronouns. So it's just logical to critize these.

Duolingo and other ressources for learning Esperanto should really have a section where people can inform themselves about the usual reform-proposals, even if it is just to eliminate the impression that these are somehow secret or evil.

Esperanto is what it is. The work of a 19th century European polyglot.

And it ain't what it ain't. Gender free, or symmetrical. The self appointed defenders of the one true faith will ensure that anyone who dares suggest that this be changed will be attacked, criticised, ridiculed.

Fortunately, non-binary people are used to being attacked, criticized and ridiculed, so as unfortunate as it is that this happens, non-binary people aren't going anywhere. Esperanto isn't going to drive them away as it's actually not special in this regard: the same thing is happening in national languages.

Fortunately. there is a solution. Forget Esperanto, learn Ido. Ido delivers what Esperanto only promises, a symmetrical, gender free, easy to learn language.

I don't see that happening. Like it or not, non-binary people are going to learn Esperanto, and the language will evolve to fit the users as it always has. Think about the fact that 30 years ago, you called any non-married woman a Frauxlino and any married woman a Sinjorino. That changed rather spontaneously; now every woman is a Sinjorino. Why? Because language evolves to fit the needs of its users, or else it's not a language at all.

Kirilo81:

leporinjo:

Kirilo81:
The Fundamenta Gramatiko clearly states that no pronouns can be added

It doesn't say this clearly; if it says this at all then it does so cryptically. I believe if Zamenhof wanted to say it clearly, he would have said it explicitly. There are so much easier ways of saying that no pronouns can be added. Like, for example, actually saying so.

French: "Les pronoms personnels sont"
English: "The personal pronouns are"
German: "Die persönlichen Fürwörter sind"

Definite article, not indefinite!

And? Do you have any idea how many meanings "Les", "The" and "Die" have?

You would imagine that in Russian, Zamenhof would strive to translate the exclusivity some other way, since it has no articles. Does he?

If not, then this is an absurd argument. It may be a popular one, but it's wrong. Furthermore, the Fundamento itself proves that it's wrong. If the FUNDAMENTO wanted those to be the only pronouns, then the FUNDAMENTO would not have added another pronoun later.

Let's talk from a purely linguistic standpoint: if "ci" is not a personal pronoun, what kind of word is it?

Bemused:Fortunately. there is a solution. Forget Esperanto, learn Ido. Ido delivers what Esperanto only promises, a symmetrical, gender free, easy to learn language.

While i admit that in principle Ido might be the better solution, i don't see a way to make people learn it instead of Esperanto. It somehow suffers from the fact that it is so close to the incumbent Esperanto: Most will simply prefer the original and bigger one. I guess in order to steal the crown of Esperanto, one would need a language which is independent from it and doesn't have its shortcomings.

@leporinjo
No, the definite article is quite clear here: It is a full list, not just some personal pronouns.

Of course the appearance of ci doesn't fit with this*, but again: You can't expect the Fundamento to be a monolithic work free of contradictions. It was compiled in 1903 (officialized in 1905) from parts stemming from 1887, 1893 and 1894, which were not changed, even not with regard to typos. Because of that some of its formulations need additional interpretation, and there are people around who have put quite much work into it.

I would like to discuss this question in a decent manner instead of being treated like an idiot with questions like "if "ci" is not a personal pronoun, what kind of word is it?".

I don't belong to the people ridiculing e.g. queer people, and I endorse their rights and aspirations. However, I must insist that any changes to Esperanto occur according to the rules of the language, which are more flexible than many people think.

*Speaking with juristic terms, it is an exception to the general law (lex specialis legi generali derogat) which does however not justify other exceptions.

Fenris_kcf:

Bemused:Fortunately. there is a solution. Forget Esperanto, learn Ido. Ido delivers what Esperanto only promises, a symmetrical, gender free, easy to learn language.

While i admit that in principle Ido might be the better solution

As a close-to-fluent speaker of Ido, I can rather confidently say that it's not. Plus, Esperanto as an actual language (from a descriptive point of view) already has the word "ri," even if many people don't understand it (just as most non-genderqueer or non-sensitive people wouldn't understand the English pronoun "ze" or find it in any normal dictionaries).

Kirilo81:@leporinjo
No, the definite article is quite clear here: It is a full list, not just some personal pronouns.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I am, but if that's the case then what does it say in Russian? tempodivalse, could you shed some light?

Of course the appearance of ci doesn't fit with this*, but again: You can't expect the Fundamento to be a monolithic work free of contradictions.

The Fundamento is either an untouchable work even with its contradictions, or it's invalid. If the former is true, you cannot really argue that the personal pronouns are a closed set of words. If the latter is true, then it doesn't matter.

It was compiled in 1903 (officialized in 1905) from parts stemming from 1887, 1893 and 1894, which were not changed, even not with regard to typos. Because of that some of its formulations need additional interpretation, and there are people around who have put quite much work into it.

I'm aware of such works, but it's quite clear that there is less consensus on this matter among members of the Academy than many "true believers" would want there to be. So these "true believers" turn around and claim that the members of the Academy who disagree with them are wrong, and they're right. But isn't that just a bit arrogant and pretentious? If members of the Academy can't even agree among themselves, then who is some random person on Lernu to say "these are the facts, period"?

I would like to discuss this question in a decent manner instead of being treated like an idiot with questions like "if "ci" is not a personal pronoun, what kind of word is it?".

I apologize if you feel I was treating you like an idiot. I'm never entirely sure who I'm arguing with.

I don't belong to the people ridiculing e.g. queer people, and I endorse their rights and aspirations. However, I must insist that any changes to Esperanto occur according to the rules of the language, which are more flexible than many people think.

I definitely agree that the rules of the language are more flexible than many people think; that's what I was trying to get across from the start. What is going on is that we disagree on how flexible they actually are; I believe they are more flexible than you believe they are. That's OK; two people can agree to disagree without being told to "go speak Ido if you don't like it."

If you can add words for computing terms and whatnot why can't there be an extra gender option or two? It's all just things unthought of in the past that have become relevant and useful now.