It's really all speculation, but Zamenhof was Jewish and something of a humanitarian, but he was also raised in poland in the 1800's. Poland granted women's suffrage in 1918. The jewish religion is/was somewhat sexist-structured: Priests must be male, and women are not traditionally encouraged to train to become rabbis or other authoritative figures in the religion...

although, if you read the following link, he seemed to be a pretty progressive thinker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homaranismo

Judaism at the time was actually starting to change to being more inclusive. I don't know if the good Dr. was a Reconstructionist Jew, but they're the branch of Judaism that began the bat mitzvah for 12 year old girls (13 year old boys always had a bar mitzvah-son of the commandment-ceremony, but it wasn't until the 1800's when the bat mitzvah ceremony was created).

So it's possible he might have been progressive even in his religion. And Reform and Conservative Jews have women rabbis now--only the Orthodox bar women from the rabbinate.

Personally, I think Dr. Zamenhof, for simplicity's sake, decided to just use one root word for one sex and change it with suffixes to the other sex. It's easier than having two words for everything. For all we know, he flipped a coin to see who got the short end of the stick, linguistically speaking.

Why would anyone care? If anyone's offended by the words being like this, then they care way too much.

Although I understand both sides of this argument, I think it's good to carefully consider the argument about linguistic drift.

Zamenhof himself originally proposed several changes to the language back in the early 1900s. These changes were based on several suggestions he had received from Esperanto speakers, but in the end those same people voted against the changes.

(See http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Historio/ )

From http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Historio/Letero... :

You know, of course, that not long ago (under the constant pressure of a few reformists) I had the intention of offering the Language Committee a project of a few improvements via the way of "neologisms". But I soon became convinced that, whatever we might do, we would never satisfy the reformists and all talk of even the most innocent improvements would now be very dangerous; so I discarded my intention. Until the time when we are quite strong and have governmental sanction, we must strictly avoid all talk of improvements.

Of course, this is an all-or-nothing sort of view, but the point is a good one. If the language breaks into multiple dialects (such as Ido) then the goal of being the international language is lost, because you then need to learn all dialects to properly converse with all speakers.

I realize that the sexism movement wants only a small number of changes. And personally, I could care less so long as the suggestions were logical. (Although I think it is simpler to just leave it as it is, like Shawna mentioned.)

But one change leads to another and another, and then where does it stop? When does the language undergo a sound change and patro is pronounced patro, fatro, or vatro, depending on where you live? Don't get me wrong, that's an extreme example, but Zamenhof had a good point and we shouldn't loose sight of it.

In the worst case the language is no worse than any natural language currently spoken by a large population. In the best case it's much easier to learn, and makes it easier for people of completely different backgrounds to make each other understood.

No kidding about sound changes in languages...

I took a year and a half of classes in Cherokee when I was in college. Depending on which area a Cherokee person was from, the word for Cherokee could be said either ja-la-gi, tsa-la-gi, or cha-la-gi.

We were always having problems in our class. Most of the people of Cherokee descent in our class were from Oklahoma, so we learned ja-la-gi. However, two people were from the Carolinas (where the tribe was first situated), and they said tsa-la-gi. We couldn't get through a class without one of these two people saying about a word, "That's not how my grandmother said it."

Heck, look at American English, and how different words are pronounced in different parts of the country. Most people in Oklahoma think I talk funny, because I grew up in Alaska, and have no Southern accent. This is in a country which has been around only 200+ years.

We're definitely lucky with Esperanto. Over a century, and I don't think we've had any sound changes, major grammar changes, etc.

Oh, and in re: "sexism" in Esperanto, I always get suspicious when a man tells me how sexist something is for women, when I myself don't really care. It sometimes sounds like I'm being told I'm too stupid to know that I'm being oppressed.

Shawna

Kat:
But this still seems to lead to an exception to the rule: nouns are gender-neutral UNLESS they're kin-based (for example), in which case you make a neutral word by applying "ge-".

Does it bug anyone else that there is an exception like this in Esperanto, whose strength is to be exception-free?

Nope, this doesn't bother me at all. Esperanto is a language spoken by humans. Since family relationships are highly gender-based, I think people have a hard time with making them gender-free. I think that's the reason why family terms have held out against the tide of gender neutrality. Maybe they too will become gender neutral with time; who knows? The fact remains that Esperanto has vastly fewer exceptions than most languages. This is not an issue that I spend much time worrying about.

Kat:
Can anyone else give me examples of when a sentence meant to be generic (e.g., "sadly, in many cases an academic's achievement is judged more by the quantity, and less by the quality, of his publications") is formed in which the pronoun is not reflexive, and therefore "si" would be a bad choice?

These reflexives are usually possessive, which makes it easier to pick out an Esperanto word. The appropriate word is "ties" lit. "that one's". So "Bedaŭrinde, en multaj kazoj, la atingo de lertulo juĝiĝas pli de la kvanto, malpli de la kvalito, de ties eldonaĵoj"

Kat:
In addition, Zamenhof (as I understood it) intended ĝi to be the gender-neutral pronoun (even when applied to people), which seems to have fallen by the wayside due to natural languages' (specifically, English's) discomfort with the idea of a genderless pronoun being applied to a person (i.e., "it" would not be applied to a person except in a derogatory sense). What are your thoughts about simply trying to get used to using ĝi in this context, as English speakers?

I think it would be hard to push English speakers to do it, since the Esperanto community at large doesn't even do it, in spite of the fact that it's perfectly correct Esperanto. Although babies are usually referred to as "ĝi", which is something I'm personally inclined to do in English. But in line with my "ties" suggestion above, "tiu" can be an excellent gender neutral quasi-pronoun in the right context. It takes a little thought but it is definitely very doable to come up with gender neutral text without resorting to "li" or to "ĝi".

Kat:
Also, what do you all think about "-iĉ" (and simply using "si" or "ĝi" as a gender-neutral pronoun in addition to "li" and "ŝi" instead of replacing them)?

I have always found riismo to be excessive in its insistence on eliminating li and ŝi entirely. "Si" is a problem because if you start using it for non-reflexive uses, it is no longer useful to show reflexivity. Between words like tiu, ties, oni, etc. I think that Esperanto already contains the tools to speak in a gender neutral manner without adding anything new or changing anything. And while I have some friends who are really gung-ho about -iĉ-, I still do not understand what the problem is with using the vir- prefix. I do tend to be a traditionalist with languages. But I feel that once you start making these changes, it's a slippery slope, and you end up like some constructed languages, that are always having changes made to make them "more perfect" but in the end, no one wants to learn the language as it exists because they are waiting for the "final version", which will probably never exist.

Kat:
Does anyone who is very experienced in Esperanto have any comments about the shift in language usage? Is it real? Does it seem to be heading towards a language full of exceptions?

I don't think so. I would say that the shift in usage in English has changed a lot more since 1887 than the usage in Esperanto. It's ok for it to evolve and change - it's a living language. The Akademio de Esperanto writes papers commenting on the latest linguistic developments and dispenses official definitons for new words. They certainly acknowledge that the language changes. While the "Fundamento" is indeed untouchable, this means essentially that everything in it is considered forever valid. Note that this does *not* mean that nothing can be added or modified. What it does mean is that even if we decide that "patro" now means "parents" instead of "father", it is not wrong for someone to use "patro" in the meaning of "father". It means that we can add to it, but not subtract.

I don't see it breaking into dialects either. Esperanto speakers stay in fairly good contact globally, and while you do have words that local communities come up with to describe local foods or places or whatever, these changes tend to be minor, and people usually understand that, for example, a non-english speaker might not know what a "bagelo" is; when speaking with someone not familiar with bagels, you might talk about "ringbulkoj" instead, to be extra clear.

waxle:See, my take on it is this: sexism in Esperanto just isn't that big of a deal, just a complaint that people have against a very valid tool. If Esperanto were gender neutral, the people who throw fits about it being sexist would find something else to throw fits about.

I would suggest reading Claude Piron's essay "Psychological responses to Esperanto" on esperanto.net. It covers this and several other (uneducated and unfounded) negative responses to Esperanto.

I just read "Psychological Reactions to Esperanto." I'm afraid I missed the discussion of sexism.

That article seemed to address fears and resistance to learning Esperanto at all.

Those of us that are concerned that masculine roots create an inequality for women are obviously not afraid to learn the language nor are we afraid to adopt the language. I, for one, fully intend to raise my children speaking at least 3 languages: Esperanto, English, and Japanese.

For a language that was ideally designed to avoid inequality, Esperanto presents the one exception mentioned in this thread.

If Esperanto had a root word for "parent" and a root word for "sibling of a parent" (aunt/uncle) and a root word for "cousin" that were all specifically non-gendered and a word for "person" that was specifically non-gendered and each of these words had to take a suffix (in the same place in the word), I wouldn't have even bothered joining this conversation or any other about this topic.

I will teach my children to use
- knabo: child
- knabino: female child
- knabiĉo: male child

To be synonymous with:
- persono: person
- personino: female person
- personiĉo: male person

Rather than:
- viro: man
- virino: man modified to woman

I will teach them this variation on the gender issue because I want to reinforce the equality of men and women. The specific issue I have with viro/virino is the same that I have with man/woman and male/female in English: viro, male, man are all the root word and virino, female, woman are all derivations through affixes as if being male is the norm and being female is to exist different from the norm. For much of history in both European and Japanese cultures, this is the way that the relationship between men and women has been manifested. I want to clearly and deliberately teach gender equality while still giving my children the tools to identify/describe a person of either gender.

I realize that I will have to also teach the knabo/knabino/geknabo method used by most of the rest of Esperanto speakers so that they will know what others are saying at congresses. My children will also be raised speaking English and Japanese, two languages in which the gender issue is very difficult to address.

I understand that I am newer to the language than people like erinja who speaks and writes fluently (and has been a fantastic teacher when I've had the time to learn). I also see the validity of argument's like Shawna's "That implies those of us who don't do it your way are being sexist...." It's certainly not my intention to teach that others are sexist. I want to teach my children gender-equality through linguistic and behavioral demonstration; the combination of the two is how culture is passed on. I understand that, in the grand scheme of education, the -iĉ- issue is a fairly minor issue. It's the combination of teaching and demonstration on the part of the parents and the surrounding community that teaches culture.

It will be by the introduction and education of the -iĉ- system that it will be integrated into Esperanto over time.

In summary: I will teach -iĉ- because I think that it's a valid and valuable addition to the language. I don't buy all of Riismo, but I do prefer -iĉ- over vir- because -iĉ- and -in- can be used in exactly the same way and in the same place. I will teach Esperanto and raise them as part of the Esperanto culture/community to help ingrain a globalist perspective; at the same time, I want to avoid reinforcing sexism through viro/virino so I will emphasize persono/personino/personiĉo. My (future) wife and I will be teach our children to call us panjo and paĉjo, like in the family that oren visited.

PS: When speaking of a hermaphrodite in Esperanto, do you use pick from li and ŝi? Can you use ĝi or oni? Which do you use to refer to a hermaphrodite without a negative connotation as found in in the English he/she/it?

Oooh, good one about how to talk about an intersexed person (that's what hermaphrodites and other people with genetic sexual defects are called now). Gxi sounds a little harsh, because that implies there's no personhood there.

In English, several writers have struggled with this. The person is refered to as sHe (said she-he), commonly. So, in Esperanto, would it be lSXi (said li-sxi)? Ouch

I read some writer says that there are actually three other sexes along with the he/she. They are herms (true hermaphrodites), ferms (female pseudohermaprodites- anatomically female but genetically male), and merms (male pseudohermaphrodites -anatomically male but genetically female).

Try figuring out gender references if that idea became common!

Shawna

Shawna:
In English, several writers have struggled with this. The person is refered to as sHe (said she-he), commonly. So, in Esperanto, would it be lSXi (said li-sxi)? Ouch

"sxli" is a variation that might work, and be more easily pronounced to boot! Although since it is already used in some Esperanto settings, (in a similar sense to "s/he" in English, that is, to indicate "he or she") perhaps it wouldn't be the best idea to appropriate it for something else.