ไปยังสารบัญ

Suffix "ino"

จาก Ploppsy32, 14 ธันวาคม 2019

ข้อความ 159

ภาษา: English

Ploppsy32 (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 2 มกราคม 2020, 22:24:36

Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020. I feel like I have been asking some straight forward questions and many of you have been putting some spin on your answers or avoiding the question. I haven't actually proposed anything, I am only asking because I was hoping one of you all could help me understand. Justify your beliefs people! @Zam_franca you can't hide behind saying "STOP THINKING THAT ESPERANTO SHOULD BE PERFECT" because that doesn't justify anything. Just because a language is not perfect doesn't mean it is okay for it to have gender-bias. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly gender-bais words okay to have in Esperanto?

Ploppsy32 (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 2 มกราคม 2020, 22:27:54

And on the topic of exceptions. Are these gender-bias words not an exception? I thought you told me that all nouns in Esperanto are gender-neutral except for some kin words?

Ploppsy32 (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 2 มกราคม 2020, 22:29:23

or actually that was nornan but whatever

nornen (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 2 มกราคม 2020, 23:00:20

Yes, this is true.

nornen (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 3 มกราคม 2020, 01:08:20

nornen:Almost all are. There is a very short list of gendered roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
I have to make a correction here. Please read: There is a very short list of sexed roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020. I feel like I have been asking some straight forward questions and many of you have been putting some spin on your answers or avoiding the question. I haven't actually proposed anything, I am only asking because I was hoping one of you all could help me understand. Justify your beliefs people! @Zam_franca you can't hide behind saying "STOP THINKING THAT ESPERANTO SHOULD BE PERFECT" because that doesn't justify anything. Just because a language is not perfect doesn't mean it is okay for it to have gender-bias. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly gender-bais words okay to have in Esperanto?
Now this is funny. First you present a hypothesis, namely "Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020". And then you request a justification for its antithesis... I think nobody owes you a justification. In a normal discourse, when somebody presents a hypothesis, the proof of burden lies upon this same person, and one normally doesn't request a justificaction of the opposite.
Your argumentation looks something like this: "Transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly transparent apples okay to have in the world?" Complete omitting (1) whether there are actually transparent apples in the world, and (2) why transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. The simple answer would be: Well, why wouldn't they?
It seems to me really quite novel to present a hypothesis and then try to lay the proof of burden onto the reader.

Also the whole argument is a bit moot, because it is based on the assumption, that Esperanto is gender-biased, i.e. it exposes a favourable tendency towards one gender over others. Is this even given?

The suffix "in" as mentioned in the title has nothing to do with gender, as it marks words for the female sex. The idea (or at least the importance of this idea) of gender (as a social construct) being unrelated to sex, is a lot younger than Esperanto itself, and hence all references to male and female in the definition of the language refer not to gender, but to sex. Exempli gratia, "in' - bezeichnet das weibliche Geschlecht" and "vir' - homme (sexe)". So the suffix "in", which this whole thread is about, has nothing to do with gender.

Is Esperanto sex-biased? There are neutral roots (person), male roots (patr) and female roots (siren). No bias so far. You can derive male words and female words: patro -> patrino; sireno -> virsireno. No bias so far. You can indeed use "li" as a generic pronoun, which might constitute a bias. But you can argue in both ways: (A) It is biased in favour of the male, because the male pronoun can double as a generic pronoun. (B) It is biased in favour of the female, because there is an exclusively female pronoun, but no exclusively male pronoun, as you can use "li" in a generic way. Not much of bias, if you cannot tell whither it is directed.

Now this whole thing ought not be confused with the actually very limited capacity of Esperanto to express ideas, that exceed the dichotomy between genders. But this has nothing to do with "in" and deriving "patrino" from "patro" or "virsireno" from "sireno", as it does not tackle the question of parents outside this dichotomy. This is a completely distinct topic, which as of late is being discussed -maybe ad nauseam- on this forum in different threads.

Jxusteno (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 3 มกราคม 2020, 06:06:38

Nornen, what about gender-neutral words. What title should we use if we don't know someone's sex (or gender...). Sinjoro is male, sinjorino is female and the singular gesinjoro is... about a person who is both male and female in the same time because the fundamental meaning of the prefix ge- is "of both sexes".

nornen (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 3 มกราคม 2020, 08:30:21

nornen:Now this whole thing ought not be confused with the actually very limited capacity of Esperanto to express ideas, that exceed the dichotomy between genders. But this has nothing to do with "in" and deriving "patrino" from "patro" or "virsireno" from "sireno", as it does not tackle the question of parents outside this dichotomy. This is a completely distinct topic, which as of late is being discussed -maybe ad nauseam- on this forum in different threads.
Ĵusteno:Nornen, what about gender-neutral words. What title should we use if we don't know someone's sex (or gender...). Sinjoro is male, sinjorino is female and the singular gesinjoro is... about a person who is both male and female in the same time because the fundamental meaning of the prefix ge- is "of both sexes".
This is a very good question and one I cannot answer. Esperanto no doubt is lacking in this aspect. However, this has nothing to do with the suffix -in nor with gender-bias or sex-bias, which apparently this thread is about. This has been discussed and is being discussed in many threads you have created in the last weeks.

Ĵusteno:someone's sex (or gender...)
As far as I have learned from your posts, gender is unrelated to sex. So a sexually male person, can be sun-gender, water-gender, light-gender, etc (just to pick some at random from the list you offered), as well as can a female person. As long as a person is sexually either male or female, sinjoro and sinjorino should work just fine, no matter the gender. As soon as somebody isn't sexually neither male nor female (outside the dichotomy), then sinjoro and sinjorino break down, no matter the gender. As far as I can conclude, one's gender isn't hindered or wrongly expressed by words like patro/patrino, frato/fratino, etc.
But maybe I just got this whole issue about sex versus gender completely wrong.

Zam_franca (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 3 มกราคม 2020, 10:07:25

nornen:
nornen:Almost all are. There is a very short list of gendered roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
I have to make a correction here. Please read: There is a very short list of sexed roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020. I feel like I have been asking some straight forward questions and many of you have been putting some spin on your answers or avoiding the question. I haven't actually proposed anything, I am only asking because I was hoping one of you all could help me understand. Justify your beliefs people! @Zam_franca you can't hide behind saying "STOP THINKING THAT ESPERANTO SHOULD BE PERFECT" because that doesn't justify anything. Just because a language is not perfect doesn't mean it is okay for it to have gender-bias. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly gender-bais words okay to have in Esperanto?
Now this is funny. First you present a hypothesis, namely "Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020". And then you request a justification for its antithesis... I think nobody owes you a justification. In a normal discourse, when somebody presents a hypothesis, the proof of burden lies upon this same person, and one normally doesn't request a justificaction of the opposite.
Your argumentation looks something like this: "Transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly transparent apples okay to have in the world?" Complete omitting (1) whether there are actually transparent apples in the world, and (2) why transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. The simple answer would be: Well, why wouldn't they?
It seems to me really quite novel to present a hypothesis and then try to lay the proof of burden onto the reader.

Also the whole argument is a bit moot, because it is based on the assumption, that Esperanto is gender-biased, i.e. it exposes a favourable tendency towards one gender over others. Is this even given?

The suffix "in" as mentioned in the title has nothing to do with gender, as it marks words for the female sex. The idea (or at least the importance of this idea) of gender (as a social construct) being unrelated to sex, is a lot younger than Esperanto itself, and hence all references to male and female in the definition of the language refer not to gender, but to sex. Exempli gratia, "in' - bezeichnet das weibliche Geschlecht" and "vir' - homme (sexe)". So the suffix "in", which this whole thread is about, has nothing to do with gender.

Is Esperanto sex-biased? There are neutral roots (person), male roots (patr) and female roots (siren). No bias so far. You can derive male words and female words: patro -> patrino; sireno -> virsireno. No bias so far. You can indeed use "li" as a generic pronoun, which might constitute a bias. But you can argue in both ways: (A) It is biased in favour of the male, because the male pronoun can double as a generic pronoun. (B) It is biased in favour of the female, because there is an exclusively female pronoun, but no exclusively male pronoun, as you can use "li" in a generic way. Not much of bias, if you cannot tell whither it is directed.

Now this whole thing ought not be confused with the actually very limited capacity of Esperanto to express ideas, that exceed the dichotomy between genders. But this has nothing to do with "in" and deriving "patrino" from "patro" or "virsireno" from "sireno", as it does not tackle the question of parents outside this dichotomy. This is a completely distinct topic, which as of late is being discussed -maybe ad nauseam- on this forum in different threads.
Thanks for this long answer. You are right.

Ploppsy32, here are some articles which may be interesting for you to read, as the others you will find in the same website :
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/human...
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/betti...

Jxusteno (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 3 มกราคม 2020, 20:15:37

Zam_franca:
nornen:
nornen:Almost all are. There is a very short list of gendered roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
I have to make a correction here. Please read: There is a very short list of sexed roots, mainly terms of kinship and some other odd-balls.
Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020. I feel like I have been asking some straight forward questions and many of you have been putting some spin on your answers or avoiding the question. I haven't actually proposed anything, I am only asking because I was hoping one of you all could help me understand. Justify your beliefs people! @Zam_franca you can't hide behind saying "STOP THINKING THAT ESPERANTO SHOULD BE PERFECT" because that doesn't justify anything. Just because a language is not perfect doesn't mean it is okay for it to have gender-bias. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly gender-bais words okay to have in Esperanto?
Now this is funny. First you present a hypothesis, namely "Gender-bais is one of the last things Esperanto needs in 2020". And then you request a justification for its antithesis... I think nobody owes you a justification. In a normal discourse, when somebody presents a hypothesis, the proof of burden lies upon this same person, and one normally doesn't request a justificaction of the opposite.
Your argumentation looks something like this: "Transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. I want some justification. Why are these seemingly transparent apples okay to have in the world?" Complete omitting (1) whether there are actually transparent apples in the world, and (2) why transparent apples are one of the last things the world needs in 2020. The simple answer would be: Well, why wouldn't they?
It seems to me really quite novel to present a hypothesis and then try to lay the proof of burden onto the reader.

Also the whole argument is a bit moot, because it is based on the assumption, that Esperanto is gender-biased, i.e. it exposes a favourable tendency towards one gender over others. Is this even given?

The suffix "in" as mentioned in the title has nothing to do with gender, as it marks words for the female sex. The idea (or at least the importance of this idea) of gender (as a social construct) being unrelated to sex, is a lot younger than Esperanto itself, and hence all references to male and female in the definition of the language refer not to gender, but to sex. Exempli gratia, "in' - bezeichnet das weibliche Geschlecht" and "vir' - homme (sexe)". So the suffix "in", which this whole thread is about, has nothing to do with gender.

Is Esperanto sex-biased? There are neutral roots (person), male roots (patr) and female roots (siren). No bias so far. You can derive male words and female words: patro -> patrino; sireno -> virsireno. No bias so far. You can indeed use "li" as a generic pronoun, which might constitute a bias. But you can argue in both ways: (A) It is biased in favour of the male, because the male pronoun can double as a generic pronoun. (B) It is biased in favour of the female, because there is an exclusively female pronoun, but no exclusively male pronoun, as you can use "li" in a generic way. Not much of bias, if you cannot tell whither it is directed.

Now this whole thing ought not be confused with the actually very limited capacity of Esperanto to express ideas, that exceed the dichotomy between genders. But this has nothing to do with "in" and deriving "patrino" from "patro" or "virsireno" from "sireno", as it does not tackle the question of parents outside this dichotomy. This is a completely distinct topic, which as of late is being discussed -maybe ad nauseam- on this forum in different threads.
Thanks for this long answer. You are right.

Ploppsy32, here are some articles which may be interesting for you to read, as the others you will find in the same website :
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/human...
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/betti...
Dankon por la ligiloj. En la modernan anglan, almenaŭ kiel al mi ŝajnas, la latinan esprimon "homo sum" estus pli bone traduki kiel "I am a human" sed ne "I am a man" ĉar la vorto "man" signifas ankaŭ "viro".

nornen (แสดงโปรไฟล์) 4 มกราคม 2020, 01:23:28

ĉar la vorto "man" signifas ankaŭ "viro".
Ankaŭ la latina "homo" signifas kaj "persono" kaj "viro", dum "vir" signifas nur "viro" kaj "mulier" signifas nur "virino".

Homo sum, ni(hi)l humani a me alienum puto.
Homo mi estas, nenion homan mi taksas fremda al mi.

En la latina "persona" signifas "(teatro)masko", ĉar la voĉo de la aktoro trasonas (lt: personat) ĝin. Ĉar helpe de malsamaj maskoj, la aktoroj rolis kiel malsamaj personoj, poste la vorto "persona" ekhavis la signifon "persono". Etimologie, persono estas masko, kiun ni surhavas en socio.

กลับไปด้านบน