Сообщений: 25
Язык: English
sergejm (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 4:01:55
I add only that in Ido we can add -ino to words, which are abstract objects; in fact, -ino in Ido means -ulino in Esperanto and -ulo in Ido means -uliĉo in Esperanto with ichism.
PS: you can find 'belino' in ESPDIC. This is not good word.
ComeradeKat (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 15:22:37
Knabeca knabino aŭ Knabulino estas knabino, kiu laŭ stereotipoj de iuj kulturoj eksponas kelkajn ecojn de la genra rolo de knaboj. Tiu ĉi socia fenomeno ne rilatas al seksemo, sed manifestiĝas jene:couldn't link it because lernu is flagging it as spam
nornen (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 17:11:42
What do you call a "knabineca knabo" in English?
(like in Spanish "afeminado")
sergejm (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 17:26:58
'knabineca knabino' => angle kaj katalune 'girly girl', germane 'Girlie', france 'girly' - ĉi tiu paĝo estas tradikita al malmultaj lingvoj.
'knabineca knabo' tute mankas en Esperanto.
But you can find it in Engish Wikipedia in the article Effeminacy:
Other vernacular words for effeminacy include: pansy, nelly, pretty boy, nancy boy, girly boy, molly, sissy, pussy, tomgirl, femboy,[5] and girl (when applied to a boy or, especially, adult man). The word effete similarly means effeminacy or over-refinement, but comes from the Latin term effetus meaning 'having given birth; exhausted', from ex- and fetus 'offspring'. The term tomgirl, meaning a girlish boy, comes from an inversion of tomboy, meaning a boyish girl. The term girly boy comes from a gender-inversion of girly girl.
RiotNrrd (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 18:26:53
The way I have been thinking, -ino does what -ulo is being used for in the examples: it automatically changes whatever it's modifying to be female in whatever way makes sense. Knabecino is not "boyishness with female equipment" (which makes no sense) but rather a female who exhibits boyishness (an interpretation which does make sense, and thus is the default meaning). It takes the adjective knabeca and combines it with the noun ino in a way that is very common in other areas of word construction; knabeca + ino = knabecino the way bona and gusto might combine into bongusto. I see no distinction here.
One might claim that -ino is a suffix and not a word, and therefore follows different rules. I think that's an artificial distinction, though. -in is the suffix, but the -o makes it a noun. Suffixes are roots and, with the proper endings, behave as regular words. I personally make no real distinction between the words virino and ino (and actually consider the latter usage to be more modern and thus preferable).
I'm not claiming my way is the right way. But to me my way seems to be consistent with other word construction principles. That's why I am surprised to hear that -ino doesn't do what -ulo does (although -ulo is definitely ungendered whereas -ino is not). I'm happy to revise my thinking, and I sort of see what people are saying, but I also feel like my objections make some sense.
nornen (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 18:55:16
Your way of thinking is as logical as any other, and de facto, as Sergej has mentioned, this is how -in works in Ido.
It all boils down to convention and established practices. It is by convention alone that we say instruistino and not *instruino, lernantino and not *lernino.
One might claim that -ino is a suffix and not a word, and therefore follows different rules. I think that's an artificial distinction, though. -in is the suffix, but the -o makes it a noun. Suffixes are roots and, with the proper endings, behave as regular words. I personally make no real distinction between the words virino and ino (and actually consider the latter usage to be more modern and thus preferable).I agree. From a morphosyntactic point of view, one cannot argue against knabecino.
I'm not claiming my way is the right way.I think this whole topic is not a question about right or wrong, but about convention.
I speak both Spanish, which has genders, and Q'eqchi', which doesn't.
From a Spanish (gendered) point of view, Sergej's and my approach seems more logical:
(eo) la kanto -> (es) el canto
(eo) *la kantino -> (es) *la canta (a female song, non-sensical and doesn't exist)
(eo) la kantisto -> (es) el/la cantante (male or female)
(eo) la kantistino -> (es) la cantante (female)
From a Q'eqchi' (ungendered) point of view, Ido's and your approach seems more logical:
(eo) la kanto -> (qeq) li b'ich
(eo) la kantisto -> (qeq) aj b'ich (female or male)
(eo) *la kantiĉo -> (qeq) winq b'ich (male singer)
(eo) *la kantino -> (qeq) ixq b'ich (female singer)
Maybe, because Zamenhof spoke German, Russian and Polish (all gendered) he chose the first approach over the latter.
sergejm (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 18:55:54
If -in-, -et-, -eg-, -aĉ- would be true roots, you need uze them as prefixes:
bela + ulo = belulo
ina + bela + ulo = belulino, not *inbelulo
eta + ina + bela + ulo = belulineto, not *etinbelulo
eta + ulo = etulo - in this case et- is used as root.
in- also can be used as root:
ineca + knabo = inknabo = girlish boy (-ec- is removed via 'neceso kaj sufiĉo' rule)
nornen (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 19:00:19
sergejm:-in-, -et-, -eg- and -aĉ- are so named 'true suffixes'. All other suffixes you can treat as roots.This distinction is arbitrary. I think that ina, eta, ega and aĉa are established words and in these the "true suffixes" are roots (according to both morphosyntax and semantics).
If -in-, -et-, -eg-, -aĉ- would be true roots, you need uze them as prefixes:
bela + ulo = belulo
ina + bela + ulo = belulino, not *inbelulo
eta + ina + bela + ulo = belulineto, not *etinbelulo
eta + ulo = etulo - in this case et- is used as root.
RiotNrrd (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 19:10:06
Now, I get that's a hard line to take, and that there are going to be places where it's best to just whistle and look the other way. But as a general rule, I don't think convention in Esperanto, outside of the rules, should be an eagerly accepted thing, and should be resisted to whatever extent is possible or makes sense in the same way that idioms are.
RiotNrrd (Показать профиль) 2 августа 2021 г., 19:34:24
As a constructed language Esperanto is rule based, so anything that fits within those rules should be acceptable. There might certainly be conventions surrounding certain usages, but usages that don't adhere to those conventions, but that do adhere to the rules, should not be considered wrong, in my opinion. Uncommon or unusual, perhaps. But not wrong.