Talk:Gender reform in Esperanto

-o does not necessarily mean something male

If one says "mia patro" yes it does mean "my father", BUT in most nouns -o does not mean something male. As an Esperantist I rarely use the -in- suffix because it's really not necessary unless one feels a great need to specify something female. In most cases, -o can be used for both male and female people, for example, "la instruisto" is a male or female teacher. Esperanto is genderless. That is a fact. - Stancel

i agree, this also means that vir- or -icho (sorry about the "H") is only used when you need to specity gender. when it comes to things like patro which literally means father, it is then specific, but i do like the use of "in" for female (virino) as it cuts aot arbitrary extra roots, and if you think about is like vir and virin (seperate roots) it doesnt seem sexist. i guess im just a fundementisto because it is just easier. also, the way i see it "o" is gender less "in" is feminine, and "vir-" is masculine, but it is just easier to specify female than constantly specify both male and female THE-JAPAN-MAN-805

Considering when Esperanto was invented, it is most likely that teachers were assume to be male. While we can drop that assume for teacher in modern times, it's not that simple for words that are obviously gender biased. Starting with patro, then adding patrino mean patro is absolutely male, it cannot be gender neutral in that context. That is what one would call a fact.

Sex and Gender

Although gender is used colloquially as a synonym for sex, in a linguistic discussion it is better to use gender its linguistic sense, and say sex when sex is meant! Esperanto, whether standard or riisma, is genderless. Ailanto 14:09, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• While the difference between gender and sex is an important one to draw, I think it misses the point. The official language esperanto is sexist in two ways: having nouns default as male, and having a female suffix but a male prefix. korbomite 2006 Jun 12

Freedom and Necessity

I'm unsure about this statement: "The infixes -iĉ- and -in- are used in a symmetric way, and only where it is necessary to emphasise or to precisely specify a sex/". Sounds to me like you can't do it unless it's necessary (which, hehe, would often be a subjective judgment), whereas I thought you can do it if you want (or need) to. Ailanto 15:29, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• If my reading is correct, it's pretty much a paraphrase of what the Manifesto says. It's probably not wise to change its meaning like that. After all, the Riists define what Riism is, not you. It's their manifesto. Uncle G 19:15, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Well, the Prezento says "Oni uzas ilin nur por emfazi la sekson aŭ por precizigi ĝin, kiam necese.". Does kiam necese apply to both uses, or just to por precizigi ĝin? I think the latter, but this English translation implies the former by moving the necese/necessary to before the uses, weakening the relationship between por precizigi ĝin and kiam necese, and strengthening or maybe even creating one between only where it is necessary and emphasise. Ailanto 03:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
  • After checking with some samideanoj, I'm still unsure about the intent. So I'll just make the translation better reflect the original, and leave clarification for a later day! Ailanto 15:48, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
    • The earlier translation provided in this article was "One use them only to emphase the sex or to precise it, if necessary.", which doesn't really help, not being correct English. ☺ Uncle G 14:47, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Malriismo

Malriisma as a synonym for standard would be amusing wordplay (or deviousness, hehe) in an Esperanto text, but in an English text I think it's misleading. And a Websearch reveals only two pages using the word: this one and a mirror of it! Ailanto 15:49, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• This article doesn't use it as a synonym for "standard". This article defines Malriismo after its first use to be non-Riism. Looking at mal- this seems to be in order. I don't think that English speakers are misled at all (unless they don't know what non- means). They are shown a contrast between Riism (Riismo) and non-Riism (Malriismo). Uncle G 19:31, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • But mal- does not mean non-... mal- means opposite. Non-Riism would be Neriismo, not Malriismo. (And Neriismo could be many things!) On the other hand, since Riismo is Esperanto with a particular modification, the opposite, Malriismo, would be Esperanto without that particular modification, which is, of course, Esperanto, standard Esperanto. So, upon closer examination, I see that Malriismo is even more inappropriate than I first thought. (Note: mal- and ne- are synonymous only in binary situations!) Ailanto 02:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • Talking of opposites: You've just argued the opposite of what you argued in your first paragraph. You previously argued that Malriismo was not synonymous with "standard Esperanto". You've now argued that it is synonymous with "standard Esperanto", it being a subset of Neriismo (being anything which isn't Riism — I notice that a reference to Ido has, quite appositely, just been added to the article.). Make up your mind! ☺ Given Ido and others, I'd say that in the context of what this article is actually saying, and going by your latest argument, Malriismo seems to be in order and that it is Neriismo that would be inappropriate. Uncle G 15:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
      • Take a closer look at my first paragraph and you'll find that I never said that Malriismo was not synonymous with "standard Esperanto"; on the contrary, I said that it would be amusing wordplay in an Esperantish context. I fear that my two points got muddled together: 1) malriismo doesn't deserve a capital letter, it's just wordplay, there is no malriisma movement, so to say, and 2) malriismo could be defined as anti-riismo, or neriismo could be defined as non-riismo... but malriismo cannot properly be defined as non-riismo. Ailanto 13:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see that Kwamikagami took care of this issue shortly afterward. Bonege! Thanks for your support, Kwamikagami. Ailanto 14:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that's not what I meant by misleading. What I meant was that use of a capitalized Malriismo implies that Malriismo is on par with Riismo, though it appears to be a word invented for this page. Ailanto 02:04, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
    • The Riist Manifesto uses liisto, a word invented for that manifesto, and (given what is said in the references in this article about alternatives such as gi) far more misleading than Malriismo is. To capitalize Riismo and not capitalize Malriismo seems asymmetric, although I can see that there is a certain degree of verity in that asymmetry. However, for comparison consider that in English, Conformist and Nonconformist are capitalized in similar contexts. Uncle G 15:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Number of Forms

Concerning this statement: "The infix and radical changes do not increase the number of forms. Both Riismo and Malriismo (i.e. non-riist Esperanto) have three relevant forms: an unmarked form and two marked forms.": How does one define form? How does one define relevant? There is undeniably an additional affix, iĉ. If "Riismo does not eliminate the prefix ge-", for whatever reason, then it has four forms (three marked), ĉu ne? Similarly but oppositely, use of ge- in the singular is new and still controversial (even if the Plena Vortaro did embrace it in 2002)— in fact, it is standard Esperanto's two forms that inspired the birth of Riismo. So, one could argue that for singular nouns (as are the examples), Riismo has four forms, Esperanto only two. Ailanto 16:25, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• One would be wrong to so argue, though. A quick search reveals plenty of (presumably non-Riist) texts on Esperanto grammar giving patro, patrino, and gepatro as examples, which by my count is 3. As for the claim that this is somehow "new and controversial": That's rubbish, too. I have a (definitely non-Riist) book on Esperanto published in 1968 that has patro, patrino, and gepatro (and patroj, patrinoj, and gepatroj) in its examples. I have little doubt that these triplets go all of the way back to the start of the language. As for Riism having four forms, since this is only true for about 20 words out of the whole language, and not true for all of the rest (such as, as mentioned, dentisto where there's no ge- form) it's a bit of a stretch to say that Riism has four forms. Uncle G 20:01, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Well, I myself have used gepatro on occasion, but I believe that it is still frowned upon. Many books do mention it because it is, indeed, seen from time to time. However, ge- was originally intended for a group of people containing both sexes; singular usage targets one person of unknown sex. Ailanto 02:29, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Manifesto vs. Prezento

Use of the word Manifesto, capitalized as a proper noun, also seems innapropriate. I have never seen a Manifesto of Riism; I have seen a Prezento. So I am going to change some of the Manifestos to Prezentos, and lowercase the others (because, lowercased, it does strike me as a valid synonym). Ailanto 12:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC) Ooh, that was a minor change after all. There were only two occurrences of Manifesto; I could have sworn there were more. Oh, well. Ailanto 12:53, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Kudos to Uncle G

Thanks for moving the criticism; it reads much better that way, combining the criticisms and cleaning up the Prezento! Ailanto 12:58, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

pronoun, "infix"

The article gives the impression that Esperanto doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun, whereas the actual problem seems to be that English speakers don't like it. Also need to change infix to suffix. The infix article shows that Esperanto does not have infixes (= affixes placed within a morpheme). kwami 21:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why riismo deserves an article?

I wonder why there's an article about riismo, since

• I have never seen it used in the Esperanto world (does anyone have a link to places that use it?)
• The "gi" proposal seems to be better or at least equally good
• There are other additions to Esperanto that have acquired larger acceptance: "icx" (icxismo), "far" and maybe "na"

Yuu en 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What's missing

The article describes what Riism is and why it was created, but leaves out who, where and when. Who created it? Where was it created (admittedly less important)? When was it created? The article also leaves out how the language has been received and how much it has been used. Has there been any literature written in Riism? Are there any organizations that use it? Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

iĉismo

Can anybody create this page? -> icism (you find material here: iĉismo). Thanks, i can't do that, no permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.97.9.85 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Will no longer needed once riism is merged. kwami (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The 20 words

Several times mention is made of the 20 or so words that are still inherently male gendered, but no list of them. The article would be improved if such a list were in the article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They're there! kwami (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What about bovo? One of the links indicated that it was inherently male, yet that wasn't on the semi-list, which is why I dismissed it as being the list. Conversely the semi-list has amiko, which I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered in the same class as doktoro, as inherently neuter. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Language is rather fluid. Originally doktoro was masculine, today it's epicene. It also depends on the language background of the speaker. kwami (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

True, language is fluid, but I can't see any reason why amiko should be considered masculine instead of epicene in either in the 19th century or now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of languages have separate forms for male and female friends. Amiko was originally masculine, and the epicene use is primarily an English influence. kwami (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Move from 'Riism'

I think it would be silly in English wiki to have separate articles on each proposed reform, since AFAIK none of them are in widespread use.

Is riism any more notable than any of the other proposals? Or is it simply a case of an advocate pushing it on the web trying to generate publicity? I've met people who use (or at least advocate) gi and -iĉo, but have never met a riist. (Yuu en above says the same.)

I'd have simply moved this, but I wanted to be sure I'm not just ignorant of a significant cultural trend. kwami (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, for masc. affixes we have -iĉo and -uno. For neuter pronouns, there's rephrasing, gi, ĝi, ŝli, geli, expanded tiu, redefined li. For neuter nouns, 0 or ge-. For new masc. pronouns, hi. Then there's fem. pl. iŝi, also fem. femo against viro, or neuter viro synonymous with adolto. Anything else?

Actually, I think we should merge Esperanto_vocabulary#Common_approaches_to_regularizing_Esperanto_gender into this article when we move it. kwami (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've started, but don't have time to clean it up right now. kwami (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the riism homepage isn't even functioning anymore, so it looks like it really was just a self-promoting flash in the pan. Anyway, my changes are pretty much finished, in case there's anything I forgot. kwami (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of article?

It is not clear to me what the purpose of this article is. The history, extent, and current status of this reform proposal is not mentioned; nor is any mention made of who initiated the proposal(s). Are these widely known and used ideas, found in everyday EO speech; or is this all just the effort of one person? There is also no mention of the fact that these sorts of reformation proposals could be considered to be counter to the guidelines in the Fundamento, which states that even the smallest change in the language would lead to "nia morto" - or is there something I am missing here? What are the reaction(s), if any, to these reform ideas? To me, this article looks like a strong POV-push. If I am wrong, then I believe the article should cover more material than it currently does. Macduff (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the article needs some cleanup, as well as some talk about the reception of such change. I do think that most of the article should stay. Maybe it's a little POV, but it's not bad. Jchthys _cont. 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The Common elements to regularizing Esperanto gender section of the article begins with the following paragragh:

"Some critics feel that deriving feminine from masculine words is sexist, while others are bothered by the lack of symmetry. Such sentiments have sparked numerous attempts at reform."

Twice I have tagged this paragraph as containing weasel words, and twice the tags have been removed, with the explanation that "these are not weasel words." However, the initial phrase "Some people" was changed to "Some critics," presumably in response to the tags.

I believe that the "Some critics" approach is still weasely. No statement is made as to who the critics are, who these "others" are, when either group made their statements, how many people were/are involved, where they were/are, nor why they should be considered important. Do any of these alleged critics exist? This is exactly the sort of situation that is warned against in the Avoid weasel words article.

Furthermore, the reference provided for the paragraph gives this url (in Italian) as its reference. The reference does not name any critics, nor does it even address gender reform or gender criticsm. It is merely a list of other proposed uncredited reforms, unrelated to gender. The page could easily be one person's list of personally proposed reforms, certainly not notable.

Given the amount of uncredited details and explantaions that have been added to this article, I am concerned that it is more original research than anything else.

Macduff (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It does need to be sourced, but that calls for fact tags, not weasel tags. The reason the wording is ambiguous is because the data is ambiguous. Numerous people make or repeat the criticisms, numerous others reject them, and this has been going on for a century. This was one of the motivations for Ido, for example, but getting the original people who made the criticisms, rather than those who repeat them, is difficult. If we can get good sources then the wording will follow, but meanwhile it's sourcing that's the basis of the problem.

PMEG says, Unu el multaj proponoj de sufikso por montri viran sekson. IĈ estas nun la plej populara propono de tia sufikso (One of many proposals for a suffix to indicate masculine gender. IĈ is now the most popular proposal for such a suffix). Maybe someone with better resources can specify who and when. kwami (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be universal, this being bothered by the lack of symmetry. I don't think there's any question of whether people criticize Esperanto for this, it's just that we need reliable sources for it. —Jchthys _cont. 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched online for "Esperanto gender sexist" and found a couple of sources, so I have now removed the weasel words and rewritten the sentence to include a quote. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nepicxo and Eks-

One specific objection to the -iĉo proposal is that *nepiĉo "grandson" is homonymous with ne piĉo "not musical pitch", which in Esperanto slang can mean "not a cunt"

I dont understand the relevance of the bolded section. This article is talking about an objection to -iĉo. The objection exists because 'nepiĉo' resembles vulgar language, not for sounding the same as 'musical pitch'. I think the bolded section should be which in Esperanto slang means.

Now about Eks-.

Eks- is also jokingly used in this sense: eksvirkato "castrated cat" (lit. "ex-man-cat") vs. *katuko. (Wennergren, Bertilo. "PMEG - UK". 12-12-08 <http://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/neoficialaj_afiksoj/sufiksoj/uk.html>.)

I don't understand why it says "jokingly used". According to the PMEG this is an actual function of the root 'eks-', and it shows no indication of the usage being anything but accepted and serious. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably reword the first. The point is that for most people, "nepicxo" would only be synonymous with "not pitch", because few people know "cunt", which is rather obscure.

PMEG may not mention that eks- is jocular in this sense, but that is how it is used. A steer is an "ex-bull", etc. Harlow introduced that as jocular in his classes. Many, perhaps most, people would argue that that isn't "real" Esperanto, any more than jocular malmangxi "retro-eat" is "real" Esperanto for "vomit" (though it is a perfectly good word, in that it gets the point across).

Certainly going on my Eo dictionary, picxo only means "pitch", and eks- is not mentioned for castrated animals. kwami (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right that the curse word is not the most used esperanto slang, but [1] only lists the slang meaning, for example. My only concern with the 'eks-' description is that the source it sites does not mention that. It would probably be prudent to find a source for it, just to satisfy the people who might think it's original research. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find a ref on eks-. PAG makes no mention of that use, at least not under eks- itself. I just know that every time I've heard somebody use it that way, the one saying it has laughed or smiled, including when I was taught it—it was presented as a joke. PMEG and its mirrors are the only time I've seen it written out as formal Eo. As for picxo, in the addendum of the PV it's defined as "absoluta sonalto de tono, skalo, instrumento au vocxo". That may be obsolete for all I know, and the slang expression didn't come in till later. kwami (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

Looks like an edit war starting up. A couple problems with recent edits:

• Table formatting messed up.
• Stuff added to tables that are not the topic of the section. (I suppose we could add isxi to the table, but not at the cost of messing up the presentation: it's really an independent issue, and has nothing to do with the nature of the epicene PN.)
• The word "generinto" is not derived from "patro". It is derived from "generi".
• Nouns do not in general change gender with affixes. Most nouns have no inherent gender.
• "pitĉo" is just an obsolete variant of "piĉo".
• Castrated animals, like eunuchs, are of course male, and therefore, like nymphs and Amazons, inherently gendered regardless of gender reform. Perhaps the point could be made more clearly.
• I'd be surprised if anyone would understand "generinteto" to be a pet name for 'parent'.
• Ĝi is not generally used for children, though that's perhaps as much a stylistic as a grammatical issue.
• The proposal for 'parent' is gepatrano, not "gepatrarano", which would have an entirely different meaning.

I left the improvements the first time around, but this time just reverted. kwami (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was writing the below before this response was made, so some of the tone should be taken with a grain of salt, but it addresses many of your points, so I'll let it stay. I'll be the first to admit that I made some errors, but it was never my intention to create an edit war. I'm going under the impression that those are your only objections, so I will reinsert some changes that are not locked by the three times rule and that you have not objected to. (I ask only that you take them on a case by case basis. I will accept any removal of the reinserted changes as the final form so that a full-blown edit war does not occur.) <- Nevermind To further address your points:

• I think the table is a little ambiguous about what the second translation column is a translation of. It should be made a little clearer.
• I never claimed that "generinto" came from that, and perhaps a few clarifying edits would have been prudent.
• Pitĉo is indeed obsolete, but it stands as an example of a neologism (in the PIV even) that was invented to avoid the unfortunate association of piĉo.
• You are right about "generinteto", and it might be considered original research in the form of synthesis, as there is no source for it.
• What something is generally used for and what is grammatically correct are two different issues entirely. In the case of "ĝi" Zamenhof used it, and by extension set a precedent for the word, even if we today ignore it.
• Yeah don't know what i was thinking with "gepatrarano", sorry. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad formatting, and a defense of my edits

Why is it that every time I make an honest attempt to contribute to this article my edits are reversed? I'll admit that some of my edits are questionable, but the formatting was not one of them. This article screams for more sectioning. Right now it flows about as well as water through a brick wall, because there is no or little transition from what I see as one section to another. I'll admit that my creating of sections wasn't particularly well executed because the article was not originally written in sections, but a shoddy editing job does not warrant a shoddy revert, it warrants a good edit.

Additionally, I do not like the arbitrary footnotes. I personally think that much of the footnote content not related to sources deserves to be in the article proper. If this was done we could change the "notes" section to a "references" section and been done with, in my cynical view, hiding crucial information in the footnotes. If they must stay we have to come to an agreement on what constitutes a "side-comment."

Now about my questionable edits:

• There is no singular word for "parent" in Esperanto - My problem with this is that there are. They are not in common usage, but are grammatically correct and are formed directly from elements found in the Fundamento. It is as impossible to argue against them as it is to argue against the word malsanulejo. I had a source for one of these and it was still removed, so it's not an issue over original research.

Okay, you put that one back in, thanks. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Making the specific iĉ books written footnotes - The criterion for whether something is footnote-worthy right now seems to be if it is not immediately relevant to the subject. In this case after the article establishes that books have been written using iĉ, it is not necessary to mention the specific books and examples where they take place in the main article.

I agree. kwami (talk)

• Pitĉo - The word pitĉo appears in no less than the PIV itself (although not in the 2005 edition.) The article claims that the words "taŭro" and "minotaŭro" exist because authors wanted to avoid the confusion without citing any sources, I believed I was in a similar situation with pitĉo. However, if sources are the reason for this one's revert, I have two that I can attach provided this is explained to be the reason for it's exclusion.

The problem I had with this is that it isn't really a different word, like maĉo and matĉo. Few esperantists ever used tĉ, which is generally seen as ad hoc and best avoided. Not really a good example, esp. since this is really just a minor detail as to why a few people have objected to iĉ, not something relevant to the article as a whole. kwami (talk)

Upon reflection, you are right. Pitĉo is unrelated to the matter at hand which is gender reform in Esperanto. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• can mean vs. means - "Cool can mean 'fashionable' in English slang" vs "Cool means 'fashionable' in English slang." I do not think that the word can is necessary in the example I give or in the article itself. The fact is that in Esperanto slang there is only one meaning for "piĉo" and that is cunt. In formal Esperanto "piĉo" only means musical pitch. And in Esperanto taken as a whole, "piĉo" can mean either musical pitch or cunt. While it is a subtle nuance I maintain that the distinction is correct as it occurs in the sentence:

One specific objection to the -iĉo proposal is that *nepiĉo "grandson" is homonymous with ne piĉo "not musical pitch", which in Esperanto slang means "not a cunt".

Because "Esperanto slang" has only one meaning for the word, it means that sense. While it is not technically incorrect to say that it can mean that it can be misleading because it makes the reader think that Esperanto slang has more than one meaning for that word.

You're probably right here. It's just that I doubt many people even know this word. kwami (talk)

I think the new wording is better, good job. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pronoun proposals - Okay the name of the table is "pronoun proposals" not "singular pronoun proposals." Why is it that Iŝiism which is mentioned in the main text of the article is continually denied a a section on this table? --Osho-jabbe (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should be re-titled "epicene 3sg" or some such. There are two issues here: a PN for 3ns, and a PN for 3fp. The first (considered gender reform) has been the subject of numerous proposals, and a table is useful to compare and summarize. The other (a translation aid) is utterly unrelated; there is only one proposal (AFAIK), and it is well illustrated by the quotation. I see no point in making a straightforward table less so by conflating the two topics. (Also, one section is tagged as OR, the other is not.) kwami (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Per your points, moved books to footnote (I don't know if any books have used -uno; might be interesting to note), deleted 'can mean' (now factually correct per your objection, without the implied certainty per mine), relabeled table 'gender-neutral PN proposals', which is what it should've been called to begin with. kwami (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to reinsert the header-words? --Osho-jabbe (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Header words? kwami (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. In the pronouns sections, one of the changes I made was adding a header for each reform. You can see an example here, under New Pronouns: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_reform_in_Esperanto&oldid=305218963

--Osho-jabbe (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I kept looking for them in the tables! Um, I don't see what they add, and in fact they would seem to make the article somewhat less accessible. These are Esperanto nonce words and are essentially meaningless in English, so they don't make good section titles. And by listing them in the contents as section headings, we'd just make the TOC look like gibberish to many of our readers. (Readers who are familiar enough with them to recognize them in the TOC would probably be on Eo wiki rather than here anyway.) And the sections they carve out are only 2-3 lines long—not enough to even use a quotation box for if they were quotes. (According to the usage guidelines for quotations, boxes are only advised for quotes 4 lines and longer.) Separating minor items like this is IMO the role of paragraphs rather than section headings. (Actually, according to our MOS, a couple of these are barely long enough to warrant separate paragraphs, let along sections.) And we always have the table at the end to recap. kwami (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a synonym?

That doesn't even make a lick of sense! The link clearly shows that the proper translation for viro is "male," and the sentence was reworded to be less misleading. The fact that vir- and vira are and have been the established way to make a root masculine, means that it is not a work-around, it is actually a feature of the language! If you must say that "there is no comparable way to derive the masculine," you should cite sources, because otherwise it's original research (after all, objectively speaking both are affixes, so they are comparable.)

I also think there should be a subsection about the "Evolution of Professions and Animals," perhaps incorporating the information already in the article with this, and also a little more about the phenomenon described here, where neuter roots take on a masculine-esque meaning when contrasted with feminine roots. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That amateur dictionary notwithstanding, viro means "man" (adult male human). Check a published dictionary. There is even a technical root in Eo for "male", masklo, though normally the zamenhofism virseksulo is used.[2] (Note they don't define either as "viro".) The complaint that virbovo is ambiguous in meaning between "bull" and "minotaur" is longstanding, which is why there is a separate root tauro for "bull". kwami (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Amateur or not, it agrees with the general word usage. The published fully-Esperanto dictionary by Pilger (the text of which is consultable here) lists viro as: homo (aux besto) kiu ne povas naski, sed kiu necesas por generi (naskigi) idon. "Man" in English refers to an adult male person, while "viro" refers to any male human or animal. Clearly, "male," is the best translation for this meaning. --207.109.163.38 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ReVo may be the work of many contributors, but is not a wiki. It is even one of the models for language use, for the Esperanto Wikipedia. Its definition checks out with my copy of iOREL, which says "viro: homo aŭ besto, kiu kune kun virino produkas idon." And arguable ReVo does define "virseksulo" as "viro."

Compare:

-virseksulo: Animalo (homo aŭ besto) de la sekso organizita por demeti en aliseksan animalon la semon de ido (kontraste kun ino)

- viro: Animalo de la sekso organizita por demeti en aliseksan animalon la semon de ido (kontraste kun ino)

And look at the synonym given for viro: [3]

EDIT: Like I said, if the criticism is long-standing, you should have no trouble finding a source for the "fact" that 'taŭro' was coined to avoid ambiguities, and not for any other reason.--Osho-jabbe (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have your facts wrong. According to this (section 'Genro kaj Sekso') grammar of Esperanto, "kaproviro" is the word that can be confused with "faŭno." Luckily, the use of 'vir' as a suffix has all but disappeared, replaced with the prefix form. This makes sense according to the rules of Esperanto word-building, which state that the main word stands last in word-building (kantbirdo vs birdkanto.) I think you will agree that a fawn is a man first, then goat-like, just as a mermaid is a woman first, then fish-like (cf. marvirino "mermaid," where virino is the chief root.)

Wikipedia needs facts supported by sources! --Osho-jabbe (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonesense?

If it is nonsense, it's nonsense from one of the more reliable sources, PMEG. If you so desire, I can put the sources from which my "questionable" edits derive, so that you can leave them in good faith. We both want the same thing: a good Wikipedia article. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be derived from that source, but does not report it accurately. The ref only says that often in the sg (and sometimes in the pl), -ulo has a masculine sense, esp. in contrast to an explicit feminine. (Historically, it was once masculine, but that's going on a century ago now.) However, you didn't say that: you said Words formed with the suffix ul "person," take on a masculine meaning in the singular, their neuter status only evident in the plural. That is unsupported by the ref and factually wrong. kwami (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Would a better rewrite be: In practical usage words formed with the suffix ul "person" are ambiguous, tending to take on a masculine meaning in the singular, and a neuter meaning in the plural. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Personally, I'd add "especially in contrast with an explicit feminine", though of course that's true for Eo in general (koko k kokino), not just with -ulo.

Sorry about the rude edit summary. I was evidently tired or cranky. kwami (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's alright. I'm sure part of it's my fault, and for that I apologize. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

meaning of viro

Added citations: Koko was originally "rooster", viro "man", and Z's solution to the ambiguity of bovoviro, virbovo, is just as ambiguous, with proposals such as stalono != centaŭro and boko != faŭno following its introduction. kwami (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One event taking place after another is not necessarily cause and effect. Taŭro and minotaŭro could have been coined for poetic or aesthetic reasons, and not due to any ambiguity present in "virbovo." "Patrino" is unambiguous and people haves still tried to coin words like "matro." As an aside, vir+animal is about as ambiguous as bigg-er is in English: it could be the -er in teach-er or in small-er, but it is always the second. One never sees sentences like, "he is a bigger" just as one never sees sentences like "Tezeo mortigis la minoan virbovon." -Osho-jabbe (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Big-ger" is grammatically unambiguous because the root is an adjective. "Man-bull" is grammatically ambiguous, as it is only defined through convention. But that violates the basic principal of Eo morphology: that words mean what they say. Thus the criticism of using such workarounds for the lack of a masculine suffix. Taŭro may have been created for other reasons, but the others weren't. Kalocsay & Waringhien write,

"Tiu sistemo de negativa esprimado de virsekso estas tiel ĝenerala, ke mankas en Esp-o eĉ speciala vorto por signi la mal-inecon. Post multaj hezitoj, oni ekuzis prefikse la radikon vir por tiu signifo : virkato kaj katino estas gekatoj. (Ĉe Z. oni trovas ankoraŭ ĉevalviro, bovoviro). Sed ĉar vir havas du aliajn signifojn (virhomo kaj maturiĝinta homo), oni bezonus specialan radikon por esprimi la mal-inecon; kelkaj proponis "masklo". Krome, pri kelkaj bestospecoj, oni bezonus apartan radikon por la virbesto, pro la ekzisto de mitologiaj duonhomaj kreaĵoj; jam oni uzas taŭro (P.I.V.) anstataŭ virbovo (kiu povus signifi: minotaŭro); oni plue proponis boko (Christaller) anstataŭ virkapro (kiu povus signifi: faŭno) kaj stalono anstataŭ virĉevalo (centaŭro)."

Read your quote again: "Sed ĉar vir havas du aliajn signifojn" It acknowledges that "male" is one of the valid meanings of vir, along with "male human" and "man." It's not the compound words that are ambiguous, but vir itself. The words virseksa and virhomo have redundancies in order to get across a specific meaning, similar to inkubo and inkubsonĝo.-Osho-jabbe (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is, if there is no mythological "man-chicken", then there is no problem with virkoko for "rooster", but as soon as that possibility arises, the vir- solution is ambiguous. kwami (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I reverted your change of 'chicken' to 'goat'. Kapro does not translate well into English, as billy goat is not a "serious" word; bovo is not good either, as English does not have a post-Shakespearean neuter word. Domestic animals were generally masculine; this isn't s.t. odd about koko, just s.t. that happens to translate well.

Look at Zamenhofan usage, kapro takes both vir and in, koko takes only in. Even in the early period of Esperanto, there were words that were mostly neuter. The problem I have with the "reverts" wording, is that while its true for many words, it's not true for all of them. If a new animal was discovered, it would come in with a neuter meaning, but "[animal]o kaj [animal]ino" would still mean "male [animal] and female [animal]." No "reverting" is happening. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, "male" is a derived meaning of viro, and seems to have been "male" in the human sense, not in the biological one. In the Russian and German, for example, it's "man, husband" (Russian мужъ [now just муж], мужчина, German Mann), and indeed the first English translation of the Unua libro had "man, husband" rather than "man, male"; in French it's just "man" in the gendered sense: homme (sexe). Virkapro is like saying "he-goat"; that doesn't mean that the word "he" means "male". kwami (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion of the "Unua Libro" is very interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The Akademia Vortaro, which has the force of being official, gives "man" from the Fundamento, and "male" from the Akademiaj Korektoj. So the meaning of "male" is beyond debate, and I don't see why you keep trying to cover that fact up. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about the original meaning of the word. Personally, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. Granted, the Unua Libro was pretty basic, but it was the source of sources in the beginning. I checked your link, and the AdE has no official definition of viro. As you say, the English translation of 'male' is a later addition. (And rightly so: "Man" is not a good translation, as it also means homo. That's why in French it's dabbed hommo (sexe) rather than left as homme, which has the same ambiguity as English man.) We all agree that viro has long been used as 'male'; after all, that's half the point of this section. Also, no corrections to the French, German, or Russian translations given in the Unua Libro. They also give the Polish, which I couldn't access in the original: again, mężczyzna, mąż "man, husband". Yes, in some of these languages you can use "man" for "male", and that's what Eo does too, but again, that's like saying "he-goat" is English. The core meaning is still "man". (Should we insist on "husband" as a definition too, since that's specifically included in Polish and Russian, despite the existence of a dedicated root? Like "male", "husband" would appear to be a secondary meaning, or an approximation of translation, leaving "man" (in the plenkreska virhomo sense) as the prototype.) kwami (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We're talking about the original meaning of the word, and that's "male." "Male" is not an addition to the Fundamento, it's a correction. The Akademio recognized that the Fundamento was in error with the translation of "man," it did not make a new meaning of the word official. (The meaning of "husband" is in all likelihood a translation artifact, as the Unua Libro was originally in Russian.) However, look again at all the words: мужчина 1. man, 2. male - mężczyzna 1. male 2. man - Mann 1. man 2. male. Then the correction to "male" begins to make sense, all these words in all these languages approach what the root actually means, which is simultaneously "man" and "male." Kabe's dictionary, possibly the first fully Esperanto dictionary published gives the following definition for "vir": "Homo aŭ besto apartenanta al la forta sekso (kontraŭo de la virino, de la ino)." There's sufficient evidence from early Esperanto that both meanings existed from the beginning, and that "male" was the chief one. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary sense in Russian, Polish, German, and French is clearly "man", not "male". In Russian, "male" for humans and animals is мужской. That's not given in the translation; surely if Z had intended it as a primary meaning, he would have included it. Take a look at the entry for мужчина in WP-ru. They even talk about how the word is often used for "mankind", incompatible with the idea that its primary meaning is "male". Same for mężczyzna in Polish and Mann in German. As for the other word, again, муж (the hard sign was dropped in spelling reforms in the early 20th c.) is "husband", and the same for mąż in Polish. In German, of course, there's only the one translation, as Mann pulls double duty as "man" and "husband". That is, Z made sure to include a translation of viro as "husband" in the three fully fluent languages he used, but he didn't bother with "male".

In French, according to the Petit Robert, "homme" means 1. man (Homo sapiens), and 2. man (adult male human). The Unua Libro specified that viro has the second meaning. No mention of "male" as even a secondary meaning in a page of fine print in one of the greatest French dictionaries, and no AK correction to the French Unua Libro because they thought it was missing something from the lack of one.

According to Swan's Polish dictionary at the Univ. of Pittsburgh,[4] mężczyzna means "man" and mąż means "husband" or "man". Per the learning dictionary used for the Russian courses at Cornell,[5] (there doesn't appear to be one at U.Pitt) again, мужчина is "man" and муж is "husband", archaic or poetic for "man (adult male)". That is, when we get down to the basics, "male" disappears as a definition; it only reappears in more detailed dictionaries, which is what tends to happen to secondary meanings.

We get the same secondary meaning of man = "male" in English, though it's not as common. For instance, take Meredith from 1887, just the time we're talking about: "The man-dog (vir-hundo) for his mistress thinks, Not less her faithful dog." Or from popular magazines a few years later: "Frequently a man seal will swim out to a lady seal." Do you remember that usage from when you were a kid? We used to say it all the time. But we don't argue that because of that man means "male" in English. And we have the same potential ambiguity in English with "man-dog" or "man seal" and possible hybrid monsters as we do in Eo. kwami (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Look everything you said proves one point. Zamenhof went out of his way to ensure that the word(s) used in every language meant "husband", "individual (human or animal) of the male sex," and "male adult human." The Akademio and Kabe seemed to think the main meaning is "individual of the male sex." Whether that was indeed the main meaning in Zamenhof's mind is not the theme of this article (but it was indisputably one meaning as Zamenhof's use of "vir" attests to.) Even if it was a minor meaning, it was a meaning from Esperanto's creation. The meaning of "husband" and "individual of the male sex" is now rare compared to the meaning of "male adult human," but the meaning of "individual of the male sex" is seen even today in compound words such as virbovo. Look at the evolution of the word "viro":

Kabe's Vortaro (1910) - Homo aŭ besto apartenanta al la forta sekso (kontraŭo de la virino, de la ino)

Grosjean-Maupin's Plena Vortaro (1933) - 1 Animalo de la sekso organizita por demeti en aliseksan animalon la semon de ido (kontraste kun ino): virbesto, virbovo, virŝafo, vir(seksul)o. 2 Virhomo (kontraste kun homino). 3 Maturaĝa virhomo (kontraste kun infano).

Plena Ilustrita Vortaro (1970) - 1 Homo, apartenanta al la sekso organizita por demeti en inon la semon de ido. 2 Tia homo, rigardata en la matura aĝo kontraste kun infano. (La radiko vir estas regule uzata kiel prefikso, por signifi la masklon de besta specio: virĉevalo, virkato, virŝafo)

You're really hung up on a meaning whose chiefness is a relatively recent development. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So your only evidence that viro primarily means "male" is Kabe, and that overrides Z himself, who defined it as "man, husband"? (And if Z ever went out of his way to ensure that viro meant "male animal" in every language, you haven't provided any evidence.) Kabe's def is clearly imprecise: he's missing both senses Z gave to the word, while substituting a 2ary sense that Z didn't bother to include. He seems to have approached this as how to come up with a single definition that would encompass all uses of the word, but in doing so he lost the specific uses of the word. Obviously, you'd never say Jen venas viro if a male dog were coming up in a dog show, or a stallion were next in an equestrian event, so saying that is (or was) the primary meaning is really a rather remarkable claim. Do you have any evidence that the word was ever used that way, as Kabe defined it? Anything from the lit, preferably Z's own writings (but even Kabe's writings, for that matter), where la viroj referred to male non-human animals? The PV and PIV only show that the "male" sense was well established by 1933, which I've never disputed. (It was of course established well before that.) Perhaps you're thinking that the order of the definitions in the PV leads from primary to 2ary, but actually it leads from general to specific: viro for boys is clearly nowhere near as common as viro for men, but the non-age specific def comes second in the PV, while the "man" def comes third. And in the PIV, "male" is removed as a proper definition and reduced to a parenthetical comment that it means male as a prefix on animals, and Z didn't use it as a prefix until 1924! Again, we're looking at the original meaning, which per the netuŝebla Unua Libro was "man, husband". You agree with me that "husband" was secondary; if that's true, then "male" was at best tertiary. And if you wish to use dictionary entry order to determine this, then Z's own netuŝebla order is "man" = 1, "husband" = 2, "male" = didn't bother to include.

As for "man" in those languages having the secondary meaning of "male", sure. Just as in Eo. Or English, for that matter. Doesn't affect the primary use of the word since 1887 and probably before.

Oh, and WP-eo's def of "viro"? Viro estas la nomo donata al plenkreskinta homo de la vira sekso, kontraste al virino kaj al knabo. La vorto viro uziĝas por distingi la biologian sekson, la kulturan rolon aŭ ambaŭ. No mention of anything else. The problem with encyclopedias is that they tend to omit secondary definitions of words, but that's exactly what we need. The problem with dictionaries is that, unless they provide examples to illustrate, they seldom mean literally what they say, and with bilingual dictionaries, that translation problems creep in. Unfortunately, the Enciklopedio de Esperanto didn't bother with such commonplace matters.

If Z had intended viro to primarily mean "male", why didn't he write, Kaj el ĉiuj vivaĵoj, el ĉiu karno, enkonduku po unu paro el ĉiuj en la arkeon, ke ili restu vivaj kun vi; viro kaj virino ili estu. ? That would be the perfect use of such a word. But no: he said virbesto kaj virinbesto, because viro doesn't mean "male".

You objected to my use of the word 'jocular' for eks- = neutered, and rightly so, as I couldn't provide a ref. But now you're claiming Z said things he clearly didn't say in the sources you've provided. If 'jocular' was unacceptable, so is this. kwami (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You made a grave mistake. The Unua Libro is not "netuŝebla"; it's not even "official." The Fundamento is both. The Akademiaj Korektoj are the latter but not the former (and they say that the Fundamento should have had read "male" not "man".) If "male" was a tertiary meaning of vir then Esperanto did have a word meaning "male" from the beginning, albeit one with other more important meanings as well. Zamenhof's use of the suffix -viro and later the prefix vir- is proof enough that "male" is a meaning of the word. Early Esperanto did not combine roots as freely, so virina (not ina) was the only available adjective meaning "feminine", and one gets more stretched meanings overall. Virseksulo and virbesto are similar to inkubsonĝo for inkubo - it specifically brings out one meaning that the word has on its own. If you won't budge on the issue of the meaning in the beginning, you have to at least agree that the translation of vir later on in the article should be "man, male" because that meaning is official, it cannot be disputed that the Akademio de Esperanto has, for better or worst, pegged the meaning of the root vir to the English "male." -Osho-jabbe (talk)

Of course it meant male! As an affix! But not as a word, and you're arguing that its primary meaning was "male", which is clearly not the case. In Russian, 1887: "man, husband". In Polish: "man, husband". In German: "man/husband". (The Deutsches Wörterbuch doesn't mention "male" for animals as a meaning for Mann until def. 13, and then says it's rare; very similar to "man seal" in English. Using Mann to angue for "male", as you have, is like using the English translation to argue that a primary meaning of viro is "chess piece".) In French: "man (gendered sense)". According to the first three definitions, you could more easily argue that viro means homo (only the French excludes that meaning) than you could argue it means masklo. When the AK corrected the English, they didn't correct the French or German, which also deny the "male" reading. Something isn't right here. And then look at the PIV: it has two meanings, "male human" and "man". "Male" for animals is a parenthetical note of a prefixal use. You have yet to provide one example of viro meaning "male (animal)", and I suspect that one doesn't exist. Anyway, when the AK corrected the English UL to include "male", for all we know they meant "male" in the sense of the first def. of the PIV, which clearly is a common (if still not the primary) meaning. That fits the other languages quite well: Mann as "male" for humans is primary definition; homme in its gendered sense has two subdefinitions, "male human" and "mature male human", so both the French and the German would be "(human) male" and "man" in English without any implication of use for animals. I think we can assume that the PIV didn't ignore the mandate of the AK in this? The only way to reconcile the AK correction for English with the lack of any such correction to the other languages, and with the exclusion of "(animal) male" from the PIV, is to read "male" in this sense: this way all five languages match (even, marginally, in the case of "husband", with "my man" in English, though I don't think this was intended), and this way also the AK agrees with the PIV. After all, we exclude the "mankind" sense of the Russian and German translations, because we know from the French and the PIV that this was not intended; we can exclude the "animal" sense of the English translation, because we know from all other four languages and the PIV that it was not intended. This is the problem with trying to rely literally on glosses in dictionaries. Look how the word is actually used: viro never means "male animal" that I'm aware of, and if it does occasionally, it's about as rare as "man" meaning "male animal" in English.

So, are we to believe that the PIV has ignored the AK in this matter? Or do we assume, lacking any contrary evidence, that their definition corresponds to the decisions of the AK? Are we to believe that the AK is incompetent in Russian, Polish, German, and French, and only got the proper translation in the case of English, a meaning which the PIV also missed? Or should we read their gloss (not translation) with the expectation that they were competent, and that "man, male" is intended to be equivalent to "Mann", "homme (sexe)", "mężczyzna, mąż", and "мужчина, мужъ"? If so, than "male" as a translation in our article here is to be avoided, for we suggest that viro means "male" of human or animal, when it only means the generic use of "man", as in calling a boy a "little man". Virbovo is a specialized use of the word "man" the same way that man seal is; it follows from neither that viro means "male" in the generic human-or-animal sense. kwami (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the most relevant part of the eoWP page that you quoted: Viro estas la nomo donata al plenkreskinta homo de la vira sekso, kontraste al virino kaj al knabo. La vorto viro uziĝas por distingi la biologian sekson, la kulturan rolon aŭ ambaŭ. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. It agrees with me perfectly: viro means "man" in the sense of an adult human who is biologically male, as well as an adult male human is his social role, or as both. The same is true of the English word "man": "He's a real man" (social expectation) vs. "men have a Y chromosome" (biological nature). "Be a man!" (social), "men have more testosterone than women" (biological), "men's room" (both). We don't need "male" to translate that, because the sense of "male" is included in the sense of the English word "man". In colloquial use, we would only use "male" in those situations where we're not sure if we're men yet or still boys, or don't want to classify others of that age, or if we don't want to be exclusive. That's when we speak of "males" and "females" instead of "men/boys" and "women/girls". I imagine an Esperantist doctor might say that a procedure is only for viroj or only for virinoj, when in English he'd say it's for "males" or "females". But it doesn't follow from this that a bull or stallion or rooster is a viro. kwami (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you have restored the Kabe over-generalization through a source that quotes him, with the OR argument that this reflects the evolution of the language. If there had actually been some such evolution, it would be covered by the PIV, perhaps with a note that it is archaic or found in the writings of author X, since the PIV covers all Eo literature, not just the recent stuff. You have still provided no evidence that Zamenhof and the PIV were wrong and Kabe right. Who, exactly, used viro to mean "male"? If it was the original meaning, where is it in Z's writings? And if viro meant "male", animal and human, in Z's writings, in the basis of the language, and was important enough for the AK to make a special correction to the Unua Libro, why in the world would the primary Eo dictionary omit it? It just doesn't hold water. kwami (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PIV, while it is the best Esperanto dictionary around, is not official. It's authors do not answer to the Akademio de Esperanto, and it is perfectly possible for it to be in error. You are again confusing the Unua Libro and the Fundamento. The Akademio de Esperanto made a correction to the Fundamento, which was made the official foundation of the language in 1905. The Unua Libro is the book where Esperanto was introduced to the world in 1887, but is not an official part of the language. I have already indicated that it is my belief that Zamenhof's use of -viro with animals indicates a vaster meaning than just "male human." But, what you or I believe has no relevance. What is relevant is whether we have sources for disputable statements. Throughout the history of this article, I have cited references to modern Esperanto dictionaries which give the "male human or animal" definition, an article which appeared in a published magazine, and the decision of the Akademio de Esperanto itself, all of which are acceptable sources for the article. Why then, do you insist on removing the secondary definition of vir (which is relevant to the scope of this article), citing only your own original research into its meaning in Esperanto? -Osho-jabbe (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's review your evidence:

• Two dictionaries, neither modern. The PV does define the word this way, but then illustrates it in this sense only as a prefix. Thus it would appear to be in the sense that the one modern dictionary, the PIV, gave it; the PIV is clearly a refinement of the def in the PV. The second, Kabe, as I've discussed, is apparently poorly defined, gives no examples for us to know whether he meant the same thing as the PV or not, and you've yet to provide an example of such usage.
• The correction to the Fundamento by the AK. Unfortunately, they don't translate the word, they only gloss it. A gloss of "man, male" cannot be expected to mean "all the uses of 'man' plus all the uses of 'male' in English"; if it did, then "man" = homo would also be a meaning of viro, as would "man" = ŝakpeco. This is clearly not the case. Shall we gloss viro in this article as "man, husband, lover, human being, mankind, person, male, vassal, player, student, chesspiece"? We need to be careful of overreading the gloss.
• The magazine only had Kabe (1910) as evidence. All the rest spins off that, and is no more reliable than Kabe. He claims that Kabe shows evolution of the word, but if that were the case, then the "male" def should be found before Kabe, though it is not. It should be found around the time of Kabe, though it is not. It should be found in Zamenhof, though it is not.

So the only real evidence you have is a dictionary from 1910 that we know to be defective, and which is not followed by modern dictionaries, or reflected in the actual use of the word in the literature. So, my question to you: what point are you trying to make that is so important you must insist on this clearly spurious definition of the word?

Now let's look at the contrary evidence:

• In his Unua libro, in the languages he was completely fluent with, Z glossed viro with words meaning 'adult male human', 'male human', 'human being', 'mankind', and 'husband', along with sundry lesser readings. With the French, the 'human being / mankind' def. is specifically excluded, and the 'husband' def. is omitted. When the Fundamento came out, these were repeated, and English "man" was added. The AK clarified this by adding "male", but as I've noted, we don't know which of the uses of that word they intended: they presumably didn't mean that "man" should include the senses of "lover" or "chess piece", for example. (This is why good dictionaries use examples, not just glosses.) They didn't bother to add the 'male' correction to the other languages, all of which would have needed it if viro was supposed to include a male flower, or even a bull. The only way to reconcile the AK correction to the English with what they accepted for French, German, Russian, and Polish is to take the "male" to mean a generalization of "man" that does not require physical maturity, a common use of the word in English.
• Zamenhof did not use viro to mean "male" apart from affixal use for animal names. To the best of my knowledge, which you've yet to refute, no other author has used viro to mean "male" either.
• As Eo dictionaries were refined, the "male" def. disappeared. This is not language evolution, as all dictionaries are compiled to enable the user to read Zamenhof: There are no non-Zamenhofian Eo dictionaries. From total omission in Zamenhof, we get Kabe's male-only def, which is at odds with the entire literature of the language, and was an apparent over-generalization, perhaps an attempt at conciseness. Kabe was superseded by the PV, which kept "male" as one of three defs, but demonstrated through its examples that it's speaking of Z's affixal use, not use as a word. Then the PIV makes this overt, but reducing the "male" def to a parenthetical note on affixal use.

Thus the evidence for viro including 'animal male' is ambiguous at best, requires the AK to be incompetent, and is contradicted by the use of the word. kwami (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Unua Libro was not translated by Zamenhof, and the first English translation, is often criticized for its gross inaccuracies (From Esperanto WP: La unua angla versio aperis en 1888, fuŝe tradukita, kaj laŭrakonte Zamenhof mem haltigis ĝian vendadon, kiam Richard H. Geoghegan, irlandano loĝanta en Britio, retradukis la libron.) The modern dictionaries I was talking about were ReVo, iOREL, and BER. I don't have to refute your original synthesis. Find a published source that is critical of Kabe's dictionary, or that explicitly details your theory of dictionary refinement. He, being an active early participant of the Esperanto movement, is qualified to comment on the meaning of the word in a way we are not. He almost certainly had access to documents which time has not preserved, and communicated with other Esperantists, who might have used the word this way in speech or letters, and as such it is nearly impossible to confirm or deny his analysis. What does comment upon the validity of his analysis, is that many dictionaries give that definition today, including the above mentioned modern dictionaries, something which, if the definition was inaccurate, would not happen. You can't have things both ways, either the words given in the Fundamento are a translation or a gloss. If they're a translation, then the AK to "male" is what the word means now and forever. If they're a gloss, all that the various words are doing is giving you an idea of vir's meaning, and as a result you can't use them alone to confirm or deny any theories regarding the word's actual meaning. Find a source for your theory about the proper meanings of the glosses, and the Akademio's intentions. There is a preponderance of evidence for my position, and only original research and personal opinion for yours. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Z did not translate the Unua Libro into Russian, Polish, or German? Who did? But the AK seems happy with the Russian, Polish, and German translations, and the French, none of which include "male" in the purely biological sense.

The early English def as "a man, a husband" was by Henry Phillips, 1889. It was not the Steinhaus translation that Z destroyed.

Wouldn't the AK's correction of the English UL just be a return to Geoghegan's translation? He has "a man, a male". So the AK does not appear to be adding a def they thought was needed, merely restoring one that was omitted: correcting a typo, in other words.

You're assuming dictionaries are more reliable than they actually are. Severe problems in English dictionaries such as Merriam-Websters are constantly pointed out; the same is true of the PIV. Again, this is why dictionaries need examples. No dictionary that does not provide examples of use can be taken seriously, and the Eo dictionaries that do provide examples support my argument, not yours.

ReVo is a wiki. You're taking that over the PIV? And they simply lifted their def from the PV, presumably because the PIV is still under copyright.

IORELo, besides being a children's dict, misses the sense of viro meaning "man". The defs are basic, brief and lack examples: they don't even have virino! You're taking this over the PIV and PV? You criticize the PIV as not being oficiala. Ĉu tia estas IORELo?

I forget what BER stands for, and it's not coming up in bibliographies of Eo dicts.

"If they're a gloss [...] you can't use them alone to confirm or deny any theories regarding the word's actual meaning." Exactly! I'm glad we're on the same page here. We need illustrations of how the words are used. You have yet to provide any.

Again, none of your evidence actually shows that viro can be used to mean "bull" or "rooster". You're cherry-picking dictionaries—poor ones—that support your argument, ignoring good ones that contradict your argument, ignoring the creator of the language, and have failed to provide a single example of this meaning which you maintain is so basic. That's the SYNTH and OR. You're the one who want to claim that viro means "male" in the biological sense, so it's up to you to demonstrate it, not up to me to refute it. Find some evidence, then come back. And since you're arguing this is the original meaning, evidence from Z's writings, please, though other examples might be of interest.

PS. Just in case you're right, I did a search for vir in the first ten chapters of Kabe's trans. of La Faraono. I only found the human sense of the word.

One additional piece of circumstantial evidence: virino is only defined in human terms in the PV, though Z used virin- as a prefix for "female" in Genesis, and other dicts you cited (which do not give examples) define virino as "female". Again, this only makes sense if "male" and "female" are being used in their human sense, or are restricted to affixal uses. kwami (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

viro 2.0

This discussion has got very long, and I haven't read all of it. But I think there is a lot of confusion on both sides of the discussion. No clear distinction was made in the discussion between the meanings of the word "viro" and the meanings of the root "vir/". This distinction is important in this case, as "vir/" is one of the few roots where there is a difference in the semantic field between the root and the corresponding noun made of the root and the O-ending.

That this distinction exists in modern usage should be beyond doubt: "Viro" as a stand-alone noun is only used for male human adults, whereas "vira" and the prefix "vir-" only imply maleness, but not humanness (adultness may sometimes be implied by prefix usage of "vir-", but not by the adjective "vira"). Again, things are complicated a bi by the fact that "vira" can be used either to mean "male" or to mean "related to a man"; in the second case adultness and humanness are still implied, but not as properties of the thing specified as "vira" (e.g. "vira voĉo" is the voice of a male adult human, but the voice itself is neither adult nor human (nor is the voice "male" in the sence of "being a creature of a sexed species but not a female")).

What can be up to discussion is whether this distinction existed from the beginning. At any rate, it is already found in Zamenhof's usage, e.g. "en la lingvo germana “kapo” havas viran sekson" (Esenco kaj Estonteco de la Ideo de Lingvo Internacia, 1907).

What I find troubling in the current versino of the article is the following claim: "there was not even originally a word for "male"." So this claim implies that originally (unlike now) one could not use "vira" to mean "male" (i.e. it could only mean "related to a man"). There are two references to his claim: PAG and Unua Libro. I doubt that in the Unua Libro it says that there is no word for "male". The absence of such a word from the Unua Libro however would not mean that the word did not exist. I can't check in my copy of PAG right now, but I'm interested in what it actually says about this issue there. Marcoscramer (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not a distinction of part of speech in English. We're talking about nouns here, viro as "a male", so vira does not apply. And re: reading the statement to mean that no word can be used to mean male, that is of course not the case: the PAG only states that there is no word "male", not that vir- isn't used as a male prefix. The relevant section was quoted above.

About the UL saying there is no word for male: This passage has been redacted so many times that the refs no longer fit the text very well. The UL is clear that vir does not mean "male", and least in the broad non-human sense; the PAG further notes that there is no other word for "male". What we have instead is an idiomatic use of vir to fill this lexical gap, a bit like using Ameriko to fill in for the USA until a dedicated root was coined.

I'm guessing here, but I imagine that Z did not see this as a lexical gap, because masculinity was entrenched as the norm in his time and culture. It became a gap as soon as the language spread to people who did not share that POV. When neuter is no longer acceptably understood to mean masculine unless stated otherwise, and there is no unambiguous way to specify masculinity, then we have a problem.

in the second case adultness and humanness are still implied, but not as properties of the thing specified as "vira" : this is not a property of the word vira, but of adjectives in general. A birda kanto is not a bird, but only related to a bird; that's what adjectives do. So this is irrelevant to the question at hand. But it does raise an interesting point: adjectival use of nouns does not necessarily mean that all properties of the noun are being attributed. Ora tempaĵo does not mean that the times were made of gold, only that they were "golden". That is, ora only implies some of the properties of oro; which ones they are depend on context, and here they are only secondary readings such as "precious, pure, untarnished". Likewise, vira does not necessarily include all of the defining properties of viro. One would normally expect adultness, humanness, maleness, and secondarily strength, dominance, honor, bravery, etc, but if applied to verse (vira rimo), none of the primary readings apply. Likewise, if applied to an animal, the human attribute does not apply. Again, this is how adjectives work in Eo, and does not mean that a lack of humanness is inherent in the root. It would be silly to argue from vira rimo that the definition of "viro" does not include masculinity or that we should acknowledge a definition viro = "strength" ('male rhyme' = 'strong rhyme').

While vir- and vira are used to mean "male", they are ambiguous, as both still mean "man", as you and various Eo authors have pointed out. So there really is no word for "male"; the word for "man" is used to fill in for "male" when need be. (And note that by convention vira tends to retain its human sense.) This is parallel to saying "the man seal swims out to the lady seal" in English. Yes, this is Zamenhofian usage, but viro no more means "male" because of this than man means "male" because of "man seal". I think the PIV captures the situation well, though they should go into more detail. One result of this is that masculine derivation is far less common than the feminine, which is easier as there is a word (originally suffix) that unambiguously means "female". The situations for masculine and feminine derivation are simply not equivalent, while Osho seems to be trying to establish that they are by claiming that the primary def. of viro is "male".

Anyway, that's the background. I'm glad you're here to help us work this out!

"Viro" as a stand-alone noun is only used for male human adults. It's impossible to prove a negative, but I hope your input here helps. Actually, though, the 'adult' part is not as firm as the rest: there are cases where viro is ambiguous as to age, just as in English a "men's room" is intended for boys as well as men. That is, viro can mean "male" in the sense of virhomo. But it is only context that forces such a reading, and I've never seen a case where context forced a non-human reading.

"vir/" is one of the few roots where there is a difference in the semantic field between the root and the corresponding noun : well, not really. As a prefix, vir- could still be understood to mean "adult male human": a virbovo could be either "a bull" or "a cherub", as the PAG noted. This is an essential part of Eo word building: the result follows logically from the components, and both "bull" and "minotaur/cherub" follow logically from virbovo. Use of vir- for "male (animal)" is an established idiom based on metaphor, just as vira rimo and ora tempo are idioms based on metaphor, and while idioms are an important part of the def. of a word, I think the PIV is correct in relegating this to a parenthetical note, just as the OED is correct in not including "man seal" in its primary definition of "man". kwami (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what vir originally means, its use as a prefix follows a pattern of word-building common to adjectival roots, but rare for noun roots. It's more similar to "dikfingro", "beldomo" and "novedzino" than it is to "vazlavilo" or "ovibovo," The words built from these adjective roots are essentially a one word version of the phrases "vira ___." This pattern generally doesn't use a separating vowel (how rare are "dikofingro" and "dikafingro?") All this could be taken to tentatively classify "vir" as a two-class root, noun and adjective, in modern usage. (Plant became a two-class, noun and verb root, so this isn't totally without precedence.) This would make its word-building less idiomatic, because "vir" being a noun root, "virbovo" should only mean minotaur. As a two-class root all its usage becomes perfectly regular. This is, of course, original research, but its interesting nonetheless. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something there. But, as the PIV implies, the more general meaning is still secondary, and as the PAG notes, vir- is ambiguous between this prefixal use (male goat) and simple compounding (man-goat). kwami (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Zamenhof?

In the article, one can read: "Zamenhof switched to using vir as a prefix in his translation of Genesis in the 1920s." Wasn't Zamenhof dead in the 1920s? --TheLazyDog (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Explained. --Error (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of Asterisk petered out, dropped off

It was promised at the start of the article that, "when a proposed word or usage is not grammatically correct according to the standard rules of Esperanto grammar, it will be marked with an asterisk." But this petered out by the section on Gender pronoun proposals and the gender pronoun proposal table. Please extend the use of asterisks in front of the usages not part of current Esperanto grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.130.86 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender reform in Esperanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019165237/http://tekstaro.com/prenisekciojn.pl?nomo=la-faraono&tipo to http://tekstaro.com/prenisekciojn.pl?nomo=la-faraono&tipo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad translation

"Ĝi estas la sinjoro de nia loko, sinjoro vicgrafo de ..." "They are the lord of our place, lord viscount of ..."

The English for this sentence would be "It is the lord of our place, lord viscount of..." Yes, that's awkward English, but Zamenhof wanted that to be said in Esperanto, just as in many dialects of English today it's acceptable to call a child "it". This is the heart of the point, and associating this usage with a recent - and politically-loaded - English neologism obscures that significantly.

"Ĝi estas" is not "they are". Laodah 06:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't call an adult "it" in English, so "it is" is a bad translation. "It is the lord" would mean something different: the event etc. was the lord doing something. "It" wouldn't refer to the lord himself. And how is they are "politically-loaded"? — kwami (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)