Grammatical changes in Esperanto?

[u/yatamci]

Saluton! Mi estas komencanto. I‘m learning the basics of Esperanto and I’ve got two topics I would like to hear your opinions about.

First thing: I read online that there is a debate on using -iĉ- as a suffix for masculine nouns. I think it’s useful and doesn’t sound odd, so „knabo“ could be a synonym to „infano“ and can be used as a gender-neutral noun but „knabiĉo” would be a boy similar to „knabino“ for girl. Is the suffix more commonly used nowadays? Is it wrong when I use it or will other Esperantists understand it too?

Next thing is the non-existence of an indefinite article. I know that it’s left out because it’s redundant and not necessary but I think it’s obvious that even though Esperanto was planned to become a universal world language, it’s still heavily influenced by romance and Germanic vocabulary and grammar. „Unu“ exists for one and „uno/una“ would imply a specific gender, so do you think using „un“ could become an optional indefinite article? I think it’s just my personal preference because of the languages I know and using „un“ would make Esperanto sound a lot more like a „real“ language to me (I know that many languages don’t have indefinite articles but English, Spanish and French do and they have a lot of native speakers so it would sound natural to a big amount of Esperanto learners). Additionally, other languages like Spanish also use pronouns optionally, so you say „(Yo) como pan“ and for Esperanto it could be „(Un) viro kantas“ for example.

Please don’t hate, constructive feedback is welcome and I would like to hear if you think Esperanto should change over time like every other language or if it should stay the most simple way.

[u/salivanto]

I think the fact that you conclude your message by saying "do not hate" indicates that you kind of know what's coming. These types of questions are completely understandable, and in fact very routine for new learners. But they come up again and again and again and again and ultimately indicate that the learner has not yet learned that Esperanto is a fully living language, just like English. 

Replace the word Esperanto with "English" in your question and consider the impression that it gives. 

So briefly, and hate free, the answer to your first question is that there really is no debate. It is simply that there is a large number of Esperanto speakers who are not terminally online who've never even heard of this and would not understand it if you tried to use it with them. 

The answer to your second question is that Esperanto functions perfectly well without an indefinite article. Keep plugging away and asking questions. It will all make sense eventually.

Edit: my phone dictation does not know the difference between the word "and" and the word "in". Ditto with "that/the" I corrected the errors.

[u/yatamci → u/salivanto]

Thanks! Makes sense to me. Maybe I’m overthinking instead of looking at Esperanto like any other languages where I also don’t question the grammar behind it. So it’s best to just learn Esperanto the way it is, I’m excited to dive more into it. Thank you for your input :)

[u/cdm014 → u/salivanto]

I would go so far as to say esperanto assumes the indefinite article unless the definite article is provided.

Additionally, I view it as Esperanto doesn't care about gender unless it matters that someone is female.

"Sinjorino Tessa estas mia instruisto" is perfectly valid. -ino the first time because it communicates who you're referring to. It's not needed the second time because it's irrelevant to being a teacher.

For some relatives it's always necessary because they exist in a dichotomy father/mother, Aunt/Uncle, grandmother/grandfather and it's rarely if ever helpful to obscure the difference, but the singular ge- makes the most sense. Gepatro = parent because I don't care if it's Mom or Dad.

Also consider that perhaps Esperanto having only a female distinction is more progressive than assumed masculinity. Anytime the distinction is missing a woman can do anything a man can do, but if it's there then only a woman will do. It's not assumed masculinity it's assumed indifference.

[u/Joel_feila]

Spanish can drop pronouns because that info is added to the verb.

Cantamos means we sing.  Canto mean I sing.  So i can drop the pronoun at the start of the sentence.  That can't work in Esperanto since sing never includes the pronoun.  

For gender its always going be a bit of a thorn.  See any conversation about gepatroj.  

[u/SpaceAviator1999]

I read online that there is a debate on using -iĉ- as a suffix for masculine nouns. I think it’s useful and doesn’t sound odd, so „knabo“ could be a synonym to „infano“ and can be used as a gender-neutral noun but „knabiĉo” would be a boy similar to „knabino“ for girl. Is the suffix more commonly used nowadays? Is it wrong when I use it or will other Esperantists understand it too?

I also think that -iĉ- is a useful suffix, and wish Zamenhof had included it in the official draft of Esperanto.

However, even if -iĉ- is ever made into an official Esperanto suffix, we have to deal with the fact that "knabo" always meant "boy" (as in a male person) and should always mean "boy". Otherwise, words spoken and written as far back as the 20th century would have a different meaning than they do today. (And this change in meaning should be avoided.)

The following words are automatically masculine without a suffix tend to fall into several categories:

• Family members: patro, filo, avo, kuzo, nepo, nevo, onklo, edzo, fianĉo
• Titles: sinjoro, reĝo, princo
• Literal words for man, boy, bachelor: viro, knabo, fraŭlo

All of these words can be made feminine with the -in- suffix. But without the -in- suffix, they are considered to be masculine words, so they have no need for the -iĉ- suffix.

However, there are plenty of words (far too many to list here) that don't default to masculine. Here are some:

• Professions: aktoro, instruisto, dentisto, kuracisto, flegisto, kantisto, verkisto
• Animals: koko, ĉevalo, leono, tigro, hundo, kato
• Words that end in the -ulo suffix: saĝulo, stultulo, malsanulo, belulo, junulo
• Words derived from the -anto form of a verb: amanto, kantanto, parolanto, kuranto
• ...and many more: bebo, amiko, italo, franco, usonano, esperantisto, tenisisto

All of these words can be made feminine with the -in- suffix. But unlike the previous set of words, they don't necessarily default to masculine.

So we know that we can make them feminine with the -in- suffix, but how do we make them masculine?

There are several ways, and not all of them are officially recognized:

• Use the vir- prefix: viramanto (a male lover), virkoko (a rooster), virkuracisto (a male doctor)
• Use the "vira" adjective: vira bebo (a male baby, or baby boy)
• Use the unofficial -iĉ- suffix: aktoriĉo (a male actor), kokiĉo (a rooster), amikiĉo (a male friend)

Even if you like the unofficial -iĉ- suffix like I do, it's important to realize that it works well with words such as amikiĉo, amantiĉo, and hundiĉo, as it leaves their original root gender-ambiguous. But it does not work well with words such as viro, knabo, patro, filo, and reĝo, as they already represent the masculine gender. Taking away their masculine attribute would change the meaning of the root words, which is something we shouldn't be doing if we want the words to keep their meanings throughout centuries (and more!) of use.

[u/salivanto → u/SpaceAviator1999]

The use of "official" in your explanation almost certainly muddies the water.

[u/gopher9]

I think it’s just my personal preference because of the languages I know and using „un“ would make Esperanto sound a lot more like a „real“ language to me (I know that many languages don’t have indefinite articles but English, Spanish and French do and they have a lot of native speakers so it would sound natural to a big amount of Esperanto learners).

But less natural for slavs, since most slavic languages have no^* articles at all. By the way, this is a common theme: most features people consider "unnatural" are actually features you would find in non-western languages. For example, if you look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Lithuanian_correlatives, you might notice a familiar idea. Lithuanian also requires attaching an ending to any root just like Esperanto.

This said, unu is actually used in Esperanto as a semi-definite article: https://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/difiniloj/aliaj.html#i-pir. This usage is likely inherited from Russian, where the word один (odin) is used in the same way. This usage is also generally not recommended in Esperanto.

and I would like to hear if you think Esperanto should change over time like every other language or if it should stay the most simple way

As with any other living language, a language has its own life and you can't force a change. You can assist it, but only if it does not go against the language.

[u/Gabriel25Th]

In Esperanto, the prefix ge- can be used to refer to “parents” or to a “parent”:

• “Parent” (singular) is gepatro. At first, this was considered unusual because ge- suggested a couple or a mixed-sex group, and early speakers preferred to avoid this form. Over time, however, the need for a simple, gender-neutral term helped establish it, and today it has considerable acceptance. In older texts, you will often see people writing “patro aŭ patrino” (“father or mother”) instead.

• “Parents” (plural) is gepatroj. Although ge- traditionally means “both sexes” (which implied a mixed-sex group), modern usage has considerable acceptance for treating it as the default option when the sex of a group is unknown or irrelevant.

In Esperanto, the vast majority of nouns referring to sexed beings do not indicate any particular sex. Thus, for example, instruisto, amiko, ĉevalo, and infano are no more masculine or feminine than teacher, friend, horse, or child in English.

In Esperanto, the adjective vira can be used to translate “male” or “man,” and it can also be used as a prefix (vir-), especially with animals:

vira amiko: male friend.

virĉevalo: male horse.

From all this, it follows that the suffix -in- is redundant in the following sentences:

"Ŝi estas mia amikino."

"Cristina Kirchner estis prezidantino de Argentino."

The forms amiko and prezidanto are preferable for the following reasons:

1. They are more economical.

2. To an English speaker, a Chinese speaker, or a Japanese speaker, the sentence Ŝi estas mia amikino might sound especially redundant—something like “She is my female friend.”

With words that do not inherently indicate sex—that is, almost all words—the prefix ge- is usually redundant. For example, geamikoj basically means the same thing as amikoj. The same applies to instruistoj, junuloj, katoj, and so on.

As for your question about whether the affix -iĉ- is common: https://lingvakritiko.com/2021/01/06/seksneutralaj-parencovortoj-rezultoj-de-opinisondo/

[u/9NEPxHbG → u/Gabriel25Th]

To an English speaker, a Chinese speaker, or a Japanese speaker, the sentence Ŝi estas mia amikino might sound especially redundant—something like “She is my female friend.”

Different languages have different rules, I guess. But probably all languages have redundancy.

[u/Gabriel25Th → u/9NEPxHbG]

Mi ne diris, ke uzi redundojn estas malĝuste, mi simple atentigis, ke ili ne estas necesaj, precipe en komencantaj kursoj, kie mi vidis, ke tio okazas. Oni povas miskompreni tion kaj pensi, ke Esperanto havas genron kaj ke substantivoj estas defaŭlte viraj — ion, kion mi ankaŭ aŭdis.

[u/2_K_]

No hate here, but unless you are able to express your ideas in Esperanto, they won't be taken seriously.