Metsis:

sergejm:

La kuracisto venis hieraŭ kaj ŝi diris tion

Ŝi can mean not the doctor, but another woman.

Yes, she can be the doctor already mentioned as Novatago said, because a doctor is a doctor. Everyone (well, almost everyone) makes the connection, that the two mentioned persons are the one and same.

Yes.
I find the topical explanation better than all those from the other ones.
Jes.
Mi trovas la fadena klarigon pli bona ol ĉiujn, kiuj devenas el aliaj fadenoj.

There is also a unofficial male suffix -iĉ- (so, "katiĉo" means "male cat")

Unofficial and incompatible with the grammar because it changes the grammar and it creates confusion. So it's not Esperanto.

It's the difference with "ge" meaning "man OR woman" in a singular word. It's not incompatible, its mean is undertstood by intuition, so it no creates any confusion. It's not a change in the existing grammar but an addition to complement. Anyway I'm not defending this use of ge-, just explaining the difference between to change an to complement.

Ĝis, Novatago (blogo / 7 + 1)

novatago:

There is also a unofficial male suffix -iĉ- (so, "katiĉo" means "male cat")

Unofficial and incompatible with the grammar because it changes the grammar and it creates confusion. So it's not Esperanto.

It's the difference with "ge" meaning "man OR woman" in a singular word. It's not incompatible, its mean is undertstood by intuition, so it no creates any confusion. It's not a change in the existing grammar but an addition to complement. Anyway I'm not defending this use of ge-, just explaining the difference between to change an to complement.

Ĝis, Novatago (blogo / 7 + 1)

"ge-" means "of both sexes". The fundamental meaning of the affixes isn't changeable, is it?

Why are you against the -iĉ-? Is it more unacceptable than the affixes mis-, -aĉ-, -end- and -ism-, that originally weren't in the Fundamento?

I'm in favour of singular ge-, because it neatly solves many of the problems, which you have bought up:

      gepatro : one of the parents (no matter of which sex)

I'm against -iĉ, because putting one of those hard-to-pronounce-and-distinguish sibilant sounds (ĉ, ĝ, ĵ, ŝ and z) on a common word is counterproductive w.r.t. ease of pronunciation.

Jxusteno:
"ge-" means "of both sexes". The fundamental meaning of the affixes isn't changable, isn't it?

Jxusteno:Why are you against the -iĉ-? Is it more unacceptable than the affixes mis-, -aĉ-, -end- and -ism-, that originally weren't in the Fundamento?

The fundamental meaning of ge- doesn't change at all. It remains there totally usable. Just there would a complementary meaning for the singular case that wouldn't interfere with the meaning for the plural case. So it's a complement not a change. As I explained already the Fundamento would remain untouched.

And Fundamento accepts to be expanded, but no to be changed. The affixes mis-, -aĉ, -end, and ism, are just expansions that don't interfere with anything in the fundamento. But -iĉ indeed interferes and NOT FOR A NEED, just for a aesthetic question.

Let's see, having in mind the explanation I gave in this thread about gender meaning of the words and roots:

The direct radical change:
The suffix -iĉ changes automatically all non gender neutral root, the female ones and the male ones. So the fundamental meaning of that words is erased: SO IT'S A CHANGE IN THE FUNDAMENTO.

It's presented as an improvement to make easier and fairer the use of the language. However, Esperanto speakers just get two parallel gender systems, both to be learned and used. Nobody understands that as an improvement. And since the problem with fairness is just an ideological invent NOT A FACT (and to discuss it doesn't make it real), and no one's rights are being affected by the Esperanto grammar, that change is going too far to get NOTHING.

The indirect change:
In this the suffix -iĉ it is supposed to used only when "need" it to make clearer the gender meaning in words whose root have a neutral gender or are not gendered at all.

It's presented as an acceptable complement because, in theory, it doesn't change anything. Also, like in the case before, it would be the equivalent for male gender of the suffix -in and the complement of -ĉj. Well that's in theory. In practice, people who is defending this already have changed the Fundamento because for them, words like kuracisto never have a male meaning. And people who not made this change in their minds, but accept the suffix -iĉ will be using it in a arbitrary way (just in a whim: today yes, tomorrow perhaps, the day after tomorrow only universe knows), not in a regular use, which for sure will be totally marginal. Learners will wrongly learn the grammar (as is already happening), a grammar that must be properly learned as any other grammar, they will find a confusing mix (as it's already happening) of texts and recordings where they can't figure out if texts without the suffix are using neutral gender or male gender words (and there is a whole and huge world of past and present literature, music and information using the right Esperanto grammar). In practice it creates an unneeded exception because no suffix can mirror the whole use of -in, and no suffix can complement -ĉj. We, at the end, in practice, have a change in the Fundamento. We, in practice, have confusion. We, in practice, will have two gender systems to be learned: one where words with a neutral gender root can have male meaning, and one where words with a neutral gender root can't have a male meaning without a suffix. We, in practice, don't get an easier to learn and to use Esperanto. And that's supposed to be the target.

The real problem is not in the language. The language have already proven to work properly as it is. The real problem is people not learning properly the grammar AND/OR (and bigger) people refusing by ideological reasons the proper use of male words from neutral roots and stubbornly to use only neutral words from neutral roots disregarding as much as they can the suffix -in: of course, refusing to do that Esperanto gets really confusing and hard to be used and, of course, a suffix would be need it BUT THE PROBLEM IS IN THE MIND OF PEOPLE not in the language because the real grammar is not designed to allow people to refuse the parts of the grammar they don't like.

Ĝis, Novatago (blogo / 7 + 1)

novatago:The fundamental meaning of ge- doesn't change at all. It remains there totally usable. Just there would a complementary meaning for the singular case that wouldn't interfere with the meaning for the plural case. So it's a complement not a change. As I explained already the Fundamento would remain untouched.

I do think the singular case would interfere with the plural case. If singular "gepatro" is possible, then we also have to accept that "gepatra" can mean just "parental" instead of the traditional "pertaining to both the father and the mother". "gepatra decido" traditionally means a decision of the father and the mother, not just a decision of one parent.
There's a section in PMEG that explains this better than me: https://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/afiksoj/prefi...

novatago:The direct radical change:
The suffix -iĉ changes the automatically all non gender neutral root, the female ones and the male ones. So the fundamental meaning of that words is erased: SO IT'S A CHANGE IN THE FUNDAMENTO.

The fundamental meaning of those words wouldn't be changed. I sometimes use -iĉ-, but I only use it at neutral roots. PMEG explicitly recommends against using it with male roots, as that wouldn't make sense. PMEG doesn't recommend against using it with gender-neutral roots anymore.

I think support for -iĉ- is increasing. Some members in the Academy of Esperanto are now actively using it, it is accepted by PMEG, it is registered in the dictionary of lernu.net and it is registered in Reta Vortaro.

robinvdv:

novatago:The fundamental meaning of ge- doesn't change at all. It remains there totally usable. Just there would a complementary meaning for the singular case that wouldn't interfere with the meaning for the plural case. So it's a complement not a change. As I explained already the Fundamento would remain untouched.

I do think the singular case would interfere with the plural case. If singular "gepatro" is possible, then we also have to accept that "gepatra" can mean just "parental" instead of the traditional "pertaining to both the father and the mother". "gepatra decido" traditionally means a decision of the father and the mother, not just a decision of one parent.
There's a section in PMEG that explains this better than me: https://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/afiksoj/prefi...

Ok that's a good point.

robinvdv:

novatago:The direct radical change:
The suffix -iĉ changes the automatically all non gender neutral root, the female ones and the male ones. So the fundamental meaning of that words is erased: SO IT'S A CHANGE IN THE FUNDAMENTO.

I think support for -iĉ- is increasing. Some members in the Academy of Esperanto are now actively using it, it is accepted by PMEG, it is registered in the dictionary of lernu.net and it is registered in Reta Vortaro.

Well, you don't speak Esperanto, but a dialect. In the inderect way we have at the end a change in the Fundamento. I think I wrote long and enough about it. Anyway, I insist I'm talking about Esperanto, and you're not. In dialects the Fundamento and Esperanto itself mean nothing so you can do whatever, except to call your dialect Esperanto, because it's not. In dialects anything goes because they disregard the Fundament. And without a Fundament we just have another chaosing volapuk, or another totally irregular language, because no one have the right to say YOU CAN'T DO THAT because you will get the answer YOU ALREADY DID IT SO I'M GOING TO DO LIKE YOU. I already have English, Spanish and French as irregular languages, I don't need any dialect of Esperanto as irregular language for any international communication.

Ĝis, Novatago.

novatago:Ok that's a good point.

It looks like you didn't even think about what you wrote... You just presented your opinion as a fact without checking any sources or thinking about it for yourself.

novatago:Well, you don't speak Esperanto, but a dialect. In the inderect way we have at the end a change in the Fundamento. I think I wrote long and enough about it. Anyway, I insist I'm talking about Esperanto, and you're not. In dialects the Fundamento and Esperanto itself mean nothing so you can do whatever. In dialects anything goes because they disregard the Fundament. And without a Fundament we just have another chaosing volapuk, or another totally irregular language, because no one have the right to say YOU CAN'T DO THAT because you will get the answer YOU ALREADY DID IT SO I'M GOING TO DO LIKE YOU. I already have English, Spanish and French as irregular languages, I don't need any dialect of Esperanto as irregular language for any international communication.

Ĝis, Novatago.

You probably don't even understand what the word "dialect" means. Writing in all caps doesn't make your incoherent opinion the right one.

Nowadays PMEG accepts -iĉ-, it's registered in Reta Vortaro and it's registered in the dictionary of lernu.net... Or are PMEG, ReVo and lernu.net also teaching a "dialect" of Esperanto?