miscellaneous questions

18 views
Skip to first unread message

lsu...@home.com

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 12:43:50 PM3/21/05
to
I last looked seriously at Esperanto over 30 years ago. I've always had
some misgivings about it, but I'm considering taking it up again, and
I'm wondering if some of the things that bothered me then have changed.
I've looked in the groups and on the web but I can't tell. If I do
pursue this, I'd like to follow current usage even if I'm working from
my old "Teach Yourself Esperanto" text.

1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?
I've seen some candidates listed in old group entries but I was
wondering if there's a front-runner.

2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
prefix?

3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
"ri", "sxli", or something else?

4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have folks
abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?

5) In words that begin with "sc", do people really pronounce it as
"sts"? Is there an "accepted" or "tolerated" alternative?

6) Are there any other new-ish developments that I should be aware of?

7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how successful
non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing with
its grammar? I would feel much better about the whole enterprise if
some Chinese or Japanese or Tongan speakers said, "Stop worrying about
us feeling left out...Esperanto's good enough."

(You can probably tell that I've been reading Don Harlow's material
from that last bit.)

Thanks, All.

Stefano MacGregor

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 1:03:54 PM3/21/05
to
<lsu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1111427030.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> I last looked seriously at Esperanto over 30 years ago. I've always
> had
> some misgivings about it, but I'm considering taking it up again, and
> I'm wondering if some of the things that bothered me then have
> changed.
> I've looked in the groups and on the web but I can't tell. If I do
> pursue this, I'd like to follow current usage even if I'm working from
> my old "Teach Yourself Esperanto" text.

We're here to help.

> 1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?
> I've seen some candidates listed in old group entries but I was
> wondering if there's a front-runner.

Esperanto has no infixes, but some use the riists' suffix "-icx-" in
this way. The official way is to use the prefix "vir-" to mean
"specifically male".

> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
> preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
> prefix?

Only the riists. Many former male-assumed nouns have become
sex-unspecifed over the years, like "amiko", and names of occupations.

See http://steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo/vocab.html#genro for
examples of this.

> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
> "ri", "sxli", or something else?

The riists use "ri", some others use "sxli", but the purists bypass all
the sexist "politically-correct" crap, and use "li".

> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have folks
> abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?

The "iks-metodo" is becoming more common, but the "ho-metodo" is still
preferred by some who consider Xs ugly. I can read both without
trouble, as well as proper circumflexes, as can many others. I prefer
Xs because they are ugly. They are not something people would like to
see as a permanent orthography.

> 5) In words that begin with "sc", do people really pronounce it as
> "sts"? Is there an "accepted" or "tolerated" alternative?

Yup. With practice, it's no trouble at all. We can even pronounce
words beginning with "ps" and "kn", and Russians can even learn to
pronounce "ekzemplo".

> 6) Are there any other new-ish developments that I should be aware of?

New, unnecessary words, like "komputero" for "komputilo".

> 7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how
> successful
> non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing
> with
> its grammar? I would feel much better about the whole enterprise if
> some Chinese or Japanese or Tongan speakers said, "Stop worrying about
> us feeling left out...Esperanto's good enough."

We had a Japanese fellow posting here quite often in Esperanto some
years back. He was quite fluent. He posted once in English, and it was
marginally understandable. He had some unusual constructions that he
used, but due to the nature of Esperanto, they were perfectly
understandable.

There is at least one native Finnish-speaker who is a regular here, but
he is fluent in English as well.

--
Stefano
http://steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo

Malte Milatz

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 1:35:33 PM3/21/05
to
I'm trying to add some thoughts to Stefano's post.

lsulky:


> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
> preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
> prefix?

You can put Esperanto words for persons in approximately these
categories:
(1) neutral (i.e. male or female)
(2) neutral
(3) male (and -in- can be added)
(4) female (rare)

Examples (the translations aren't always nice, but they show the exact
meaning):
(1) homo (human being), infano (child)
(2) koko (chicken), with virkoko (rooster) and kokino (hen)
(3) knabo (boy), with knabino (girl)
(4) ino (female)

> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
> "ri", "sxli", or something else?

Most use li, I myself use ghi.

> 7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how successful
> non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing with
> its grammar?

Hungarians usually talk without any annoying accent and get along well
with the grammar. However, there are some folks around the world
who've got a terrible accent when talking in Esperanto.

Malte

Lee Miller

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 3:55:31 PM3/21/05
to
"Martin Br ü ggemeier" <martin.br...@tiscali.de> wrote

> But it's definitely not correct to use _gxi_ for persons as it can only
> refer to things.

"Gxi" can be used for babies and animals, regardless of sex, and they're
probably not in the "things" category.

Lee


Martin Brüggemeier

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 2:33:44 PM3/21/05
to
Am 21.03.2005 19:35 Uhr schrieb Malte Milatz unter
malte...@gmx-topmail.de:

> I'm trying to add some thoughts to Stefano's post.
>
> lsulky:
>> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
>> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
>> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
>> preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
>> prefix?
>
> You can put Esperanto words for persons in approximately these
> categories:
> (1) neutral (i.e. male or female)
> (2) neutral

[...]

> (1) homo (human being), infano (child)
> (2) koko (chicken), with virkoko (rooster) and kokino (hen)

Well, aren't chickens either male or female too?

>> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
>> "ri", "sxli", or something else?
>
> Most use li, I myself use ghi.
>

But it's definitely not correct to use _gxi_ for persons as it can only
refer to things.

>> 7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how successful


>> non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing with
>> its grammar?
>
> Hungarians usually talk without any annoying accent and get along well
> with the grammar. However, there are some folks around the world
> who've got a terrible accent when talking in Esperanto.

On the other hand, most esperantists don't perceive accents in Esperanto as
being _that_ terrible.

Martin

Malte Milatz

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 3:24:08 PM3/21/05
to
Martin Brüggemeier:
> Noiw I see what you mean: the nouns in group 1 can't have a male or female
> affix.

Right; I thought that I had written that, but obviously I forgot to.

Malte

Lee Miller

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 3:53:45 PM3/21/05
to
You raise some interesting questions, and have already started getting some
interesting answers. Maybe I can add another perspective.

> 1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?

In common use? I would say no, absolutely not. There are some experimental
uses, but nothing that's a part of the normal language.

> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"?

In my language usage, "knabo" means only "boy". The word for "child" is
"infano", and I don't see "knabo" and "infano" as interchangeable terms.

> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
> "ri", "sxli", or something else?

Once again, preferred? None of the above.

> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have folks
> abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?

The x-method is probably the most commonly used, but a fair number of people
use the h-method. Since they're both just surrogate ways of indicating the
circumflex, it doesn't really matter. In standard Esperanto there is no
omission of the breve over the u after a. In internet surrogate methods,
some people omit the breve, others write "aux", etc.

> 5) In words that begin with "sc", do people really pronounce it as
> "sts"? Is there an "accepted" or "tolerated" alternative?

People do pronounce it as "sts". However, in most cases pronunciation as a
simple "s" doesn't have an impact on meaning or understandability.

> 6) Are there any other new-ish developments that I should be aware of?

There are always people proposing new-ish developments, but I would say
other than new vocabulary the language is the same as what you'll read in
TYE and other similar textbooks.

Lee


Martin Brüggemeier

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 2:48:08 PM3/21/05
to
Mi skribis:

> Am 21.03.2005 19:35 Uhr schrieb Malte Milatz unter
> malte...@gmx-topmail.de:
>
>> I'm trying to add some thoughts to Stefano's post.
>>
>> lsulky:
>>> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
>>> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
>>> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
>>> preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
>>> prefix?
>>
>> You can put Esperanto words for persons in approximately these
>> categories:
>> (1) neutral (i.e. male or female)
>> (2) neutral
>
> [...]
>
>> (1) homo (human being), infano (child)
>> (2) koko (chicken), with virkoko (rooster) and kokino (hen)
>
> Well, aren't chickens either male or female too?

Noiw I see what you mean: the nouns in group 1 can't have a male or female
affix.

Martin

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 6:01:32 PM3/21/05
to
"Lee Miller" <LeeM...@msn.com>:

> "Gxi" can be used for babies and animals, regardless of sex, and
> they're probably not in the "things" category.

Se diri honeste, mi neniam nomus infanon per "ĝi". Por tio ne estas ia
lingva pravigo krom hindeŭropa influaĉo.


Marko

--
Marko Rauhamaa mailto:ma...@pacujo.net http://pacujo.net/marko/

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 6:45:47 PM3/21/05
to
lsu...@home.com:

> 1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?

No.

> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally?

No.

> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
> "ri", "sxli", or something else?

No.

> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have folks
> abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?

No.

> 5) In words that begin with "sc", do people really pronounce it as
> "sts"? Is there an "accepted" or "tolerated" alternative?

No.

> 6) Are there any other new-ish developments that I should be aware of?

No.

> 7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how successful
> non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing with
> its grammar?

No.

> Thanks, All.

You're welcome.

Sebastian

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 6:53:19 PM3/21/05
to
Marko Rauhamaa:

> "Lee Miller" <LeeM...@msn.com>:
>
>> "Gxi" can be used for babies and animals, regardless of sex, and
>> they're probably not in the "things" category.
>
> Se diri honeste, mi neniam nomus infanon per "ĝi". Por tio ne estas ia
> lingva pravigo krom hindeŭropa influaĉo.

Pri la uzado de "LI" anstatau "GHI"

Vi skribis, ke, parolante pri infano, vi uzas "li" anstatau "ghi", char vi
ne aprobas "la anglan kutimon starigi infanojn sur unu shtupon kun bestoj
kaj objektoj". Kontrau la uzado de "li" en tiaj okazoj oni nenion povus
havi; sed la _kauzo_, kial ni (kaj ankau la lingvo angla) uzas en tiaj
okazoj "ghi", estas ne tia, kiel vi pensas. Nek la lingvo angla nek
Esperanto havis ian intencon malaltigi la indon de infanoj (ambau lingvoj
estas ja tiel ghentilaj, ke ili diras "vi" ne sole al infanoj, sed ech al
bestoj kaj objektoj). La kauzo estas tute natura sekvo de al konstruo de la
ambau diritaj lingvoj. En chiu lingvo chiu vorto havas (tute ne logike)
difinitan sekson, kaj tial, uzante por ghi pronomon, ni prenas tiun, kiu
repondas al la gramatika sekso de la vorto (tial la franco diras pri infano
"il", la germano diras "es"); sed en la lingvoj angla kaj Esperanto la
vortoj havas nur sekson _naturan_, kaj tial, parolante pri infanoj, bestoj
kaj objektoj, kies naturan sekson ni ne scias, ni _vole-ne-vole_ (sen ia
ofenda intenco) uzas pronomon mezan inter "li" kaj "shi" -- la vorton
"ghi". Tiel same ni parolas ankau pri "persono". Cetere, parolante pri
infano, pri kiu ni _scias_, ke ghi _ne_ estas knabino (au almenau _ne_
scias, ke ghi estas _knabino_), ni povas uzi la vorton "li".

LLZ, Lingvaj Respondoj, unua publikigo: Esperantisto, 1893, p. 16

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

lsu...@home.com

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 8:17:39 PM3/21/05
to
Thank you, Stefano and others, for the replies. Just a few more
clarifications:

Stefano MacGregor wrote:
> > 1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?
> > I've seen some candidates listed in old group entries but I was
> > wondering if there's a front-runner.
>
> Esperanto has no infixes, but some use the riists' suffix "-icx-" in
> this way. The official way is to use the prefix "vir-" to mean
> "specifically male".
>

I take it that "riists" are esperantists who take pains to avoid
so-called "sexist" language?

Would an Irishman be "Irlandano", or has that come to mean "Irish
person"? If so, would "Irishman" now be "virIrlandano"? Or, if
"Irlandano" does still mean "Irishman", what would be the word for
"Irish person"?

---SNIP---

> > 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is
preferred:
> > "ri", "sxli", or something else?
>
> The riists use "ri", some others use "sxli", but the purists bypass
all
> the sexist "politically-correct" crap, and use "li".

I thought "li" meant "he". Does it now mean "he/she"? If so, is there a
new word for "he"? If "li" is used to mean both "he" and "he/she", is
it because it was recommended to be so by Prof. Zamenhof?

I'm being disengenuous here. One of the reasons I'm wanting to pursue
Esperanto is that it attempts to put international communication on a
more level basis. I'm hoping it is more level between speakers of
different languages AND of different genders. Is gender-sensitivity
considered "crap" by most esperantists, or are the purists in the
minority on this issue?

(Actually, where I work is about 85% women, so it has become the
practice in my workplace to use "she" as the non-gender-specific
pronoun. I'll bet I could make that work in my Esperanto studies too.
Or maybe I'll just become a riist.)

>
> > 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have
folks
> > abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?
>
> The "iks-metodo" is becoming more common, but the "ho-metodo" is
still
> preferred by some who consider Xs ugly. I can read both without
> trouble, as well as proper circumflexes, as can many others. I
prefer
> Xs because they are ugly. They are not something people would like
to
> see as a permanent orthography.

When using a modern word processor that can support the diacritics, are
there generally accepted ways of keyboarding the c^, S^, etc.?

---SNIP---

Thanks again!

Arnold Victor

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 9:12:53 PM3/21/05
to

lsu...@home.com wrote:
> I last looked seriously at Esperanto over 30 years ago. I've always had
> some misgivings about it, but I'm considering taking it up again, and
> I'm wondering if some of the things that bothered me then have changed.
> I've looked in the groups and on the web but I can't tell. If I do
> pursue this, I'd like to follow current usage even if I'm working from
> my old "Teach Yourself Esperanto" text.
>
> 1) Is there a masculine infix in common use, in parallel with -in-?
> I've seen some candidates listed in old group entries but I was
> wondering if there's a front-runner.
>

They're all back-runners and have been losing ground, compared with the
usage in this newsgroup several years ago. "Vir-"serves in words like
"virbovo."

> 2) Do esperantists, or at least a goodly number of them, nowadays use
> the non-gender-infixed nouns neutrally? That is, if they say "knabo"
> are they understood to mean "child", not "boy"? If not, what is the
> preferred mechanism for indicating non-gender-specificity: the "ge"
> prefix?
>

Yes. It is like political correctness in racism, i. e., there is slow
progress.

> 3) Which of the animate but non-gender-specific pronouns is preferred:
> "ri", "sxli", or something else?
>

None. A regular contributor to this group signed himself a "riisto," but
his messages stopped several years back, and there has been hardly
anyone interested in the topic since.

> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"? Have folks
> abandoned the breve over the "u" when it follows "a"?
>

"X" predominates in all search-counts. Unicode spelling with all
supersigns is very slowly gaining ground. "U" without a breve is a
regular feature of the "h-" method.

> 5) In words that begin with "sc", do people really pronounce it as
> "sts"? Is there an "accepted" or "tolerated" alternative?
>

There is a "sc-". I think you probably are influenced by English
phonology to suppose that there can only be "sts-", but it is tolerated,
as it causes no conflict in understanding what word is meant, i. e., it
is a permissible allophone. Esperanto phonology is not very
prescriptive, which makes it easy on learners and even on veterans.

> 6) Are there any other new-ish developments that I should be aware of?
>

There is a new edition of the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, an authoritative
but not official dictionary. It is forbiddingly expensive. Bertilo
Wennergren, a regular contributor here, keeps up-to-date his on-line
edition of his Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko (PMEG), which has
become accepted as authoritative and is on its way to a printed version.

> 7) Are there any reports that folks could point me to on how successful
> non-Indo-European speakers are in pronouncing Esperanto or dealing with
> its grammar? I would feel much better about the whole enterprise if
> some Chinese or Japanese or Tongan speakers said, "Stop worrying about
> us feeling left out...Esperanto's good enough."
>
> (You can probably tell that I've been reading Don Harlow's material
> from that last bit.)
>

I don't catalog such reports, but I can say that in 1981 I repeatedly
asked that question on an Esperanto tour of Japan and China, and I was
uniformly told that Esperanto was easier than European languages.
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

Thomas Bushnell, BSG

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 9:39:59 PM3/21/05
to
Arnold Victor <arvi...@earthlink.net> writes:

> There is a "sc-". I think you probably are influenced by English
> phonology to suppose that there can only be "sts-", but it is
> tolerated, as it causes no conflict in understanding what word is
> meant, i. e., it is a permissible allophone. Esperanto phonology is
> not very prescriptive, which makes it easy on learners and even on
> veterans.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying here. What are
the two allophones for "sc-" that you are pointing to?

Stefano MacGregor

unread,
Mar 21, 2005, 10:21:14 PM3/21/05
to
<lsu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1111454259.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> I take it that "riists" are esperantists who take pains to avoid
> so-called "sexist" language?

Actually, I consider their actions to be sexist.

> Would an Irishman be "Irlandano", or has that come to mean "Irish
> person"? If so, would "Irishman" now be "virIrlandano"? Or, if
> "Irlandano" does still mean "Irishman", what would be the word for
> "Irish person"?

irlandano (no capital) = Irishman = Irish person
virirlandano (better: vira irlandano) = Irishman (specifically male)
irlandanino = Irishwoman

> I thought "li" meant "he".

It does.

> Does it now mean "he/she"?

Only in the sense that, in English, "he" means "he/she".

> If so, is there a new word for "he"? If "li" is used to mean both
> "he" and "he/she", is it because it was recommended to be so by
> Prof. Zamenhof?

Confusion here. Esperanto "li" means "he". That is, a person,
generally male, but also sex unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant.
Esperanto does not require the sexist "he/she" constructions and the
like.

Esperanto "shi" means "she". That is, a specifically female person.

> Is gender-sensitivity considered "crap" by most esperantists, or are
> the purists in the minority on this issue?

I'm actually the one who considers gender-sensitivity to be crap.
Others are on their own.

> (Actually, where I work is about 85% women, so it has become the
> practice in my workplace to use "she" as the non-gender-specific
> pronoun. I'll bet I could make that work in my Esperanto studies too.
> Or maybe I'll just become a riist.)

Actually, this is bullshit. The word "she" is not non-gender-specific;
it is specifically feminine. What you are doing is using "she" instead
of "he" as the non-sex-specific pronoun. Learn the difference between
gender and sex, and you'll be all right.

> When using a modern word processor that can support the diacritics,
> are
> there generally accepted ways of keyboarding the c^, S^, etc.?

No, each word-processor has its own conventions for inputting them. On
this newsgroup, when I need them, I call up "Character Map", click all
the accented letters, copy and paste them into one line of my message,
and then copy and paste from there as I need them, and delete the help
line. On my web pages, I use numeric entities.

--
Stefano
http://www.steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo

lsu...@home.com

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 12:04:43 AM3/22/05
to
Some observations and one more question:

1) Why would "vira irlandano" be better than "virirlandano"?

2) So women get their own pronoun, but men have to make do with a
pronoun that means "he" or "it" or "he or she" or "whoever". I'm
starting to feel oppressed here.

3) You wrote: "Actually, this is bullshit. The word "she" is not


non-gender-specific; it is specifically feminine. What you are doing
is using "she" instead of "he" as the non-sex-specific pronoun."

Do you mean "bullshit" in the sense of "incorrect terminology"
('gender' vs. 'sex') or in the sense of "misguided" (using 'she' rather
than 'he')? Or both? Either way, I have to admit that your powers of
persuasion are certainly enhanced by labeling what I've said with
scatalogical invective -- if I was doubting you before, I'm sure not
now!

"Learn the difference between gender and sex, and you'll be all right."

Thanks for that conditional vote of confidence, though I'm not sure I
deserve it, being a sexist-crap gender-sensitive bullshit artist, and
all. I'll try to shape up before venturing again into the
rough-and-tumble world of Esperanto!

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 9:53:31 AM3/22/05
to
Malte Milatz:

> Sebastian Hartwig:


>> Pri la uzado de "LI" anstatau "GHI"
>

> Se mi ghuste legis kaj komprenis la Lingvan Respondon cititan de vi,
> eblas do laŭ Zamenhof ambaŭ "la persono - li" kaj "la persono - ghi".
> Chu ghuste?

Lau mia kompreno jes. Mi uzas la okazon, por denove citi mian modelon de la
tri triapersonaj singularaj pronomoj en Esperanto:

GHI: ghenerala, por chio (ajhoj, bestoj, personoj, floroj, ...) uzebla
pronomo.

LI: estas subgrupo de GHI, nur personoj kaj tio, al kio oni atribuas
personecon (povas esti bestoj, sed ankau aliaj aferoj).

SHI: estas subgrupo de LI, nur tiuj, kiuj estas in-seksaj, au al kiuj oni
atribuas inseksecon.

La uzo de la pli specifaj pronomoj ne estas deviga, oni do povas uzi "li" au
"ghi" ankau parolante pri persono, kiu fakte estas in-seksa. (Oni kutime
tamen uzas la pli specifajn pronomojn.)

Oni povas do konstati:

1-e: Specifa pronomo por nevivaj, nepersonaj aferoj mankas.

2-e: Specifa pronomo por virseksaj personoj mankas.

Foje oni konceptas LI kaj SHI kiel samnivelajn, t. e. SHI ekskluzive por
inseksaj, LI ekskluzive por virseksaj homoj. Tial oni ofte trovas frazojn
kiel "li au shi devas havi bonajn konojn en mashintajpado" au simile. Tio
estas lau mi nepreferinda koncepto en Esperanto, sed ankau ghi ekzistas.

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Malte Milatz

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 6:18:30 AM3/22/05
to
lsulky:

> 1) Why would "vira irlandano" be better than "virirlandano"?

Until now, I never met the word "virirlandano". It seems to me that there
usually no need to accent someone's sex when saying where he's from. Take
e.g. the sentence "He is French.", in Esperanto: Li estas franco. Since
I'm referring to him by "he"/"li", it's obvious he's male. Interesting,
however, that "She is French." usually gets translated like that: Shi
estas francino.

"Vira irlandano" simply is the right translation of "male Irish person",
and sounds less strange in Esperanto than in English.

> 2) So women get their own pronoun, but men have to make do with a
> pronoun that means "he" or "it" or "he or she" or "whoever". I'm
> starting to feel oppressed here.

You don't have to: "li" means exactly the same as English "he", and "shi"
means exactly the same as English "she". Consider the following sentence:
"I saw a person enter the store. I think he was wearing blue jeans."
(Is the above proper English? I hope so, otherwise my explanations will
get useless.) This is an example of using "he" in a context where the
person's sex is unknown.

Malte

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 4:44:52 PM3/22/05
to

<lsu...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1111427030.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"?

An "'x'-for-circumflex method" does not exist in Esperanto. People who use
the letter x in Esperanto words just use a wrong spelling (orthography), and
in no way a "method" or "system". So ist es, und so bleibt es! (So is it,
and so remains it!)

--
Andreas Kueck
DE1002SWL
Retposhtleteroj al AKueck (volvita A) t-online (punkto) de estas nelegite
malregistrotaj.

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 2:16:06 PM3/22/05
to
Sebastian Hartwig <s...@mailinator.com>:

> Marko Rauhamaa:
> > Kion vi volas diri?
>
> Vi asertis, ke por nomi infanon per "ghi" "ne estas ia lingva pravigo
> krom hindeŭropa influaĉo."
>
> Z donis lingvan pravigon por nomi infanon (kaj entute "personon") per
> "ghi":


>
> >> parolante pri infanoj, bestoj kaj objektoj, kies naturan sekson ni
> >> ne scias, ni _vole-ne-vole_ (sen ia ofenda intenco) uzas pronomon
> >> mezan inter "li" kaj "shi" -- la vorton "ghi". Tiel same ni parolas
> >> ankau pri "persono".

Tio ne estas lingva pravigo. Zamenhof neniam mem uzis eĉ konserveman
ĝiismon sed ĉiam uzis la pronomon "li" por "persono". Malgraŭ la
konvinkoprovoj de Zamenhof oni devas konkludi, ke multaj uzas la
pronomon "ĝi" por infanoj pro la influo de la hindeŭropa gramatika
seksosistemo.

Krome povas roli tio, kion Zamenhof malkonfesis: pensado pri infanoj
kiel apenaŭhomaj objektoj.

Malte Milatz

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 6:22:26 AM3/22/05
to
Sebastian Hartwig:

> Pri la uzado de "LI" anstatau "GHI"

Se mi ghuste legis kaj komprenis la Lingvan Respondon cititan de vi,


eblas do laŭ Zamenhof ambaŭ "la persono - li" kaj "la persono - ghi".
Chu ghuste?

Malte

Arnold Victor

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 8:53:16 PM3/22/05
to

"sc-" and "sts-"

"c" is a phonologically valid separate sound, not just a subsitute for
"ts", as it is represented in English phoneme analysis. It had its own
alphabet letter in several of the languages Zamenhof regularly used:
German, Russian, Yiddish, and Hebrew. Probably in Polish, too, but I
don't know enough about Polish to discuss it. But Esperanto phonology is
not exhaustively prescriptive, and I think that's a good thing.

Arnold Victor

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 9:11:27 PM3/22/05
to
Andreas Kueck wrote:

>
> <lsu...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1111427030.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"?
>
>
> An "'x'-for-circumflex method" does not exist in Esperanto. People who
> use the letter x in Esperanto words just use a wrong spelling
> (orthography), and in no way a "method" or "system". So ist es, und so
> bleibt es! (So is it, and so remains it!)
>

We have had this out before, but since you intentionally propagandize
someone asking for information, I will reassert my opposing view:

"x" means that there is a supersign on the preceeding letter. It exists
in Esperanto usage and overwhelmingly predominates in any honest
search-count of Esperanto usage in the internet. It is an easier system
in computer usage and is just as "correct" as any other "system," since
the "system" in the Fundamento is permissive, not prescriptive, and is
of (very) limited applicability. So ist es, und so bleibt es!

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 2:22:20 PM3/22/05
to
Sebastian Hartwig <s...@mailinator.com>:

> Lau mia kompreno jes. Mi uzas la okazon, por denove citi mian modelon
> de la tri triapersonaj singularaj pronomoj en Esperanto:
>
> GHI: ghenerala, por chio (ajhoj, bestoj, personoj, floroj, ...) uzebla
> pronomo.
>
> LI: estas subgrupo de GHI, nur personoj kaj tio, al kio oni atribuas
> personecon (povas esti bestoj, sed ankau aliaj aferoj).
>
> SHI: estas subgrupo de LI, nur tiuj, kiuj estas in-seksaj, au al kiuj oni
> atribuas inseksecon.
>
> La uzo de la pli specifaj pronomoj ne estas deviga, oni do povas uzi
> "li" au "ghi" ankau parolante pri persono, kiu fakte estas in-seksa.
> (Oni kutime tamen uzas la pli specifajn pronomojn.)

Bela modelo sed ĉu prava? Estas eraro uzi la pronomojn "ĝi" kaj "li",
kiam oni parolas pri efektiva virino (eĉ se oni ankoraŭ ne scias, ke ŝi
estas virino).

> Tial oni ofte trovas frazojn kiel "li au shi devas havi bonajn konojn
> en mashintajpado" au simile. Tio estas lau mi nepreferinda koncepto en
> Esperanto, sed ankau ghi ekzistas.

Laŭ mia opinio esperanto ne posedas preferindan koncepton. "Ŝi aŭ li"
estas malbelega sed ja la plej bela.

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 9:53:39 AM3/22/05
to
Sebastian Hartwig <s...@mailinator.com>:

> Marko Rauhamaa:
>

> > Se diri honeste, mi neniam nomus infanon per "ĝi". Por tio ne estas
> > ia lingva pravigo krom hindeŭropa influaĉo.
>
> Pri la uzado de "LI" anstatau "GHI"
>
> Vi skribis, ke, parolante pri infano, vi uzas "li" anstatau "ghi",
> char vi ne aprobas "la anglan kutimon starigi infanojn sur unu shtupon
> kun bestoj kaj objektoj". Kontrau la uzado de "li" en tiaj okazoj oni
> nenion povus havi; sed la _kauzo_, kial ni (kaj ankau la lingvo angla)
> uzas en tiaj okazoj "ghi", estas ne tia, kiel vi pensas. Nek la lingvo
> angla nek Esperanto havis ian intencon malaltigi la indon de infanoj
> (ambau lingvoj estas ja tiel ghentilaj, ke ili diras "vi" ne sole al
> infanoj, sed ech al bestoj kaj objektoj). La kauzo estas tute natura
> sekvo de al konstruo de la ambau diritaj lingvoj. En chiu lingvo chiu
> vorto havas (tute ne logike) difinitan sekson, kaj tial, uzante por
> ghi pronomon, ni prenas tiun, kiu repondas al la gramatika sekso de la
> vorto (tial la franco diras pri infano "il", la germano diras "es");
> sed en la lingvoj angla kaj Esperanto la vortoj havas nur sekson
> _naturan_, kaj tial, parolante pri infanoj, bestoj kaj objektoj, kies
> naturan sekson ni ne scias, ni _vole-ne-vole_ (sen ia ofenda intenco)
> uzas pronomon mezan inter "li" kaj "shi" -- la vorton "ghi". Tiel same
> ni parolas ankau pri "persono". Cetere, parolante pri infano, pri kiu
> ni _scias_, ke ghi _ne_ estas knabino (au almenau _ne_ scias, ke ghi
> estas _knabino_), ni povas uzi la vorton "li".
>
> LLZ, Lingvaj Respondoj, unua publikigo: Esperantisto, 1893, p. 16

Kion vi volas diri?

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 22, 2005, 10:37:00 AM3/22/05
to
Marko Rauhamaa:
> Kion vi volas diri?

Tion:

Vi asertis, ke por nomi infanon per "ghi" "ne estas ia lingva pravigo krom
hindeŭropa influaĉo."

Z donis lingvan pravigon por nomi infanon (kaj entute "personon") per "ghi":

>> parolante pri infanoj, bestoj kaj objektoj, kies


>> naturan sekson ni ne scias, ni _vole-ne-vole_ (sen ia ofenda intenco)
>> uzas pronomon mezan inter "li" kaj "shi" -- la vorton "ghi". Tiel same
>> ni parolas ankau pri "persono".

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

lsu...@home.com

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 2:01:36 AM3/23/05
to

Malte Milatz wrote:
> lsulky:
> > 1) Why would "vira irlandano" be better than "virirlandano"?
>
> Until now, I never met the word "virirlandano". It seems to me that
there
> usually no need to accent someone's sex when saying where he's from.
Take
> e.g. the sentence "He is French.", in Esperanto: Li estas franco.
Since
> I'm referring to him by "he"/"li", it's obvious he's male.
Interesting,
> however, that "She is French." usually gets translated like that: Shi
> estas francino.
>

Thanks, Malte.

I'm confused by the usage. I understand that many words, such as
"amiko" no longer convey masculinity as they once did, but some words
-- especially those for family members -- still do. And I understand
that, in the case of "knabo", it means 'boy', "knabino" means 'girl',
and "infano" means 'child'. Fair enough. But apparently there are still
some words that convey masculinity at the same time as they convey
neutrality. Evidently, "irlandano" means 'Irish man' and 'Irish person
of either sex', while "irlandanino" means 'Irish woman'. So if I say
"sxi estas irlandanino", then I know "sxi" is a woman; if I say "li
estas irlandano", then "li" could be a man or a woman. This confuses
me. I'm looking for a way to indicate that someone is a man in a manner
that is somewhat parallel to the way that I indicate that someone is a
woman.

> "Vira irlandano" simply is the right translation of "male Irish
person",
> and sounds less strange in Esperanto than in English.
>

Is the right translation of 'female Irish person' "virina irlandano"?

> > 2) So women get their own pronoun, but men have to make do with a
> > pronoun that means "he" or "it" or "he or she" or "whoever". I'm
> > starting to feel oppressed here.
>
> You don't have to: "li" means exactly the same as English "he", and
"shi"
> means exactly the same as English "she". Consider the following
sentence:
> "I saw a person enter the store. I think he was wearing blue jeans."
> (Is the above proper English? I hope so, otherwise my explanations
will
> get useless.) This is an example of using "he" in a context where the
> person's sex is unknown.
>

No, in this context you have clearly indicated that the person was a
man, because you saw him. Usually the confusion arises in hypothetical
situations. A better example might be 'No matter which editor we assign
to this project, he will do a good job.' This is archly-correct
English. It is also outmoded, but English does not provide any good
alternatives. I had hoped that Esperanto did, at least nowadays. I
heard once that Zamenhof recommended "gxi" for this usage, but that
apparently bothers most people so much that they consider him wrong on
this count. (And yet "li" as a gender-neutral pronoun does NOT bother
them!)

As long as there is a way of indicating that something is male, or is
female, or is of gender unknown or irrelevant, even if these ways are
not parallel, then fine. My trouble starts when there is simply no way
to distinguish between 'male' and 'unknown gender'.

Modern English usage guides say that the use of 'he' as a
gender-neutral pronoun is no longer defensible. But it appears that
Esperanto is still comfortable with it. I think I'll use "ri" anyway.
Or, better yet, I'll use "li" when I don't know the gender, and "virli"
when I know it's male. :-)

> Malte

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 3:55:02 AM3/23/05
to

"Arnold Victor" <arvi...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3ac1ihF...@individual.net...

> Andreas Kueck wrote:
>
>>
>> <lsu...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:1111427030.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"?
>>
>>
>> An "'x'-for-circumflex method" does not exist in Esperanto. People who
>> use the letter x in Esperanto words just use a wrong spelling
>> (orthography), and in no way a "method" or "system". So ist es, und so
>> bleibt es! (So is it, and so remains it!)
>>
>
> We have had this out before, but since you intentionally propagandize
> someone asking for information,
>

I would not say that I "propagandize" someone asking for information but
that I inform him about the correct orthography of Esperanto.

> I will reassert my opposing view:
> "x" means that there is a supersign on the preceeding letter. It exists in
> Esperanto usage and overwhelmingly predominates in any honest search-count
> of Esperanto usage in the internet. It is an easier system in computer
> usage

All these things do not turn wrong orthography into correct orthography. And
intentionally or consciously using wrong orthography is a very bad doing to
Esperanto.

> and is just as "correct" as any other "system,"

No.

> since the "system" in the Fundamento is permissive,

"Permissive" in the meaning: You may transcribe.

> not prescriptive,

"Prescriptive" in the meaning: If you transcribe, then transcribe by ch,
gh, hh, jh, sh, and u.

> and is of (very) limited applicability.

No.

> So ist es, und so bleibt es!

No.

Remush

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 6:46:36 AM3/23/05
to

"Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d1rat8$i2l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...

> "Prescriptive" in the meaning: If you transcribe, then transcribe by ch,
> gh, hh, jh, sh, and u.
>> and is of (very) limited applicability.
> No.

Mi sekvis viajn konsilojn, sed poste mi volis automate transkodi la tekston
al uniko.
jen la rezulto:

aerodromo: flugaveno
ci: vi (Thou salt not use "ci"!)
campanjo: sauxmvino (FR campagne)
cet/cetejo: babili/babilejo (EN to cat=babili)
hospitalo: malsanulejo (DE Krankenhaus)
kanzono: kanteto* (FR gars/garçon, ours/ourson, cant/canson)
parkere: elkape, perkore (FR "par coeur", EN "by heart")
pitco: tonalteco (EN pitc)
rakedo: (sporto) batilo (DE Scläger, HU ûtô)
sriki: ekkrii (EN sriek?)
vinco: tirilo (FR treuil, EN winc)

(cerpita el http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/ts/vortoj.html)

Tiam mi sangis opinion.
Mi atendos ke vi modifu la programon ce
file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ray/My%20Documents/pandora/esperanto/alunikodo.html
tiel ke ch->c bone funkcias.
... multe da plezuro...
Remus (Belgio)


Martin Brüggemeier

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 6:52:35 AM3/23/05
to
Am 23.03.2005 9:55 Uhr schrieb Andreas Kueck unter AKu...@t-online.de:

>
> "Arnold Victor" <arvi...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3ac1ihF...@individual.net...

>> I will reassert my opposing view:


>> "x" means that there is a supersign on the preceeding letter. It exists in
>> Esperanto usage and overwhelmingly predominates in any honest search-count
>> of Esperanto usage in the internet. It is an easier system in computer
>> usage
>
> All these things do not turn wrong orthography into correct orthography. And
> intentionally or consciously using wrong orthography is a very bad doing to
> Esperanto.
>
>> and is just as "correct" as any other "system,"
>
> No.
>
>> since the "system" in the Fundamento is permissive,
>
> "Permissive" in the meaning: You may transcribe.
>
>> not prescriptive,
>
> "Prescriptive" in the meaning: If you transcribe, then transcribe by ch,
> gh, hh, jh, sh, and u.
>
>> and is of (very) limited applicability.
>
> No.
>
>> So ist es, und so bleibt es!
>
> No.

Andreas, please be aware of the fact that Esperanto develops -- just like
every other language.

Martin

Martin Brüggemeier

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 6:56:49 AM3/23/05
to
Am 23.03.2005 12:46 Uhr schrieb Remush unter Rem...@telenet.be:


> Mi atendos ke vi modifu la programon ce
> file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ray/My%20Documents/pandora/esperanto/alu
> nikodo.html

Kiel iu el ni povus modifi programon cxe via durdisko? ;-)

Martin

Malte Milatz

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 6:45:36 AM3/23/05
to
lsulky:

> So if I say
> "sxi estas irlandanino", then I know "sxi" is a woman; if I say "li
> estas irlandano", then "li" could be a man or a woman.

Well, no. It's somehow hard to explain, because I never thought about
this, but I'll try.

If you know someone is female, you always use "shi", and if you know
someone is male, you always use "li". This is non-ambigous in
practically all cases.

Likewise, you use irlandano - irlandanino depending on whether you're
talking about a man or a woman. You also use irlandano if you don't know
the person's sex, but then this non-ambigous, too, because it's rarely the
case: "Mi vidis irlandanon." - "I saw an Irishman". If I saw him and even
know he's Irish, then of course I know that he's male, too.

> This confuses
> me. I'm looking for a way to indicate that someone is a man in a manner
> that is somewhat parallel to the way that I indicate that someone is a
> woman.

A problem here is also that Esperanto is used differently by different
people: Not everyone is talking as Zamenhof did. However, as in the
example above, there are hardly any misunderstandings from that fact.

> Is the right translation of 'female Irish person' "virina irlandano"?

Well, there is irlandanino.

>> "I saw a person enter the store. I think he was wearing blue jeans."

>> [...] This is an example of using "he" in a context where the


>> person's sex is unknown.
> No, in this context you have clearly indicated that the person was a
> man, because you saw him.

Well, let's assume it's a foggy evening, and I'm at the other end of the
street. It's actually the term "person" which shows that I'm uncertain
about his appearance; I would have used man or woman otherwise.

> A better example might be 'No matter which editor we assign
> to this project, he will do a good job.' This is archly-correct
> English.

And so is its direct translation into Esperanto, using "li".

> It is also outmoded, but English does not provide any good
> alternatives. I had hoped that Esperanto did, at least nowadays. I
> heard once that Zamenhof recommended "gxi" for this usage, but that
> apparently bothers most people so much that they consider him wrong on
> this count.

Well, I don't, and when used in the context above, I won't bother. But, of
course, I can only speak for me, and it actually seems that most people
prefer "li". However, I think it would be strange if someone used "li aŭ
shi" here, since that would mean that he stresses something irrelevant.

> (And yet "li" as a gender-neutral pronoun does NOT bother
> them!)

That's something I'm wondering about, too, which is why I prefer using
"ghi" in some situations.

> My trouble starts when there is simply no way
> to distinguish between 'male' and 'unknown gender'.

As you've seen from both examples we've used (the blue jeans and the
editor), it's obvious from the context whether the gender is known or not.

> I think I'll use "ri" anyway.

Note, however, that many people might not appreciate the usage of "ri",
since it has got a rather reformistic overtone.

Anyway, "felichan esperantumadon" - happy esperantoing! (That's one
example why I like the language ;-)

Malte

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 8:32:30 AM3/23/05
to

"Remush" <Rem...@telenet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:wGc0e.43891$UE6.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>
> "Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:d1rat8$i2l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>> "Prescriptive" in the meaning: If you transcribe, then transcribe by ch,
>> gh, hh, jh, sh, and u.
> >> and is of (very) limited applicability.
>> No.
>
> Mi sekvis viajn konsilojn,

Mi konsilis nenion. Mi nur atentigis pri tio, kio estas elprenebla el la
Fundamento.

> sed poste mi volis automate transkodi la tekston al uniko.

Jen vi ja ekhavas konsileton:

Ne multe fidu je automataj transkodiloj kaj automataj ortografi-helpiloj!

Kaj se vi ja volas uzi transkodilon, kompreneble ghi devas esti adaptita
respektive.

> jen la rezulto:
>
> aerodromo: flugaveno
> ci: vi (Thou salt not use "ci"!)
> campanjo: sauxmvino (FR campagne)
> cet/cetejo: babili/babilejo (EN to cat=babili)
> hospitalo: malsanulejo (DE Krankenhaus)

> kanzono: kanteto* (FR gars/garon, ours/ourson, cant/canson)


> parkere: elkape, perkore (FR "par coeur", EN "by heart")
> pitco: tonalteco (EN pitc)

> rakedo: (sporto) batilo (DE Sclger, HU t)


> sriki: ekkrii (EN sriek?)
> vinco: tirilo (FR treuil, EN winc)
>
> (cerpita el http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/ts/vortoj.html)
>

Mi komprenas nek la endonitajhojn nek la eldonitajhojn nek la celon de la
tuta afero.

Se chiu skribus Esperantlingve tiel, kiel mi skribas en mia interretpagharo
(http://www.akueck.de), tiuokaze

- la ortografio de Esperanto estus lau la Fundamento kaj plej vaste unueca
kaj krome
- estus neniaj problemoj pri iaj "transkodiloj" (pro ties ne-neceseco).

> Tiam mi sangis opinion.

Kiun "opinion" vi shanghis? La de vi supre-menciita sekvado de miaj
"konsiloj" iel ne povas esti "opinio", char mi ja konsilis nenion.

Au vi skribas lau la Fundamento au vi ne skribas lau la Fundamento. Kaj tio
havas neniajn rilatojn al ia "opinio".

> Mi atendos ke vi modifu la programon ce
> file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ray/My%20Documents/pandora/esperanto/alunikodo.html
> tiel ke ch->c bone funkcias.

Jam delonge preterpasis tiuj tempoj, dum kiuj mi sentis min respondece pri
la riparo de chiaj de aliuloj kauzitaj fushajhoj ;-)

ind...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 9:06:41 AM3/23/05
to

Bonvolu provi Simredon. Ghi ghuste konvertas de la h-metodo.

(Ghi ne konvertas maloftajn vortojn, sed la literumilo helpas
atentigi tiajn vortojn.)

http://purl.oclc.org/net/klivo/simredo

Klivo

Martin Brüggemeier

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 11:25:52 AM3/23/05
to
Am 23.03.2005 14:32 Uhr schrieb Andreas Kueck unter AKu...@t-online.de:

>
> "Remush" <Rem...@telenet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:wGc0e.43891$UE6.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:d1rat8$i2l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>>> "Prescriptive" in the meaning: If you transcribe, then transcribe by ch,
>>> gh, hh, jh, sh, and u.
>>>> and is of (very) limited applicability.
>>> No.
>>
>> Mi sekvis viajn konsilojn,
>
> Mi konsilis nenion. Mi nur atentigis pri tio, kio estas elprenebla el la
> Fundamento.

Sed bonvolu ne forgesi, ke Esperanto konsistas ne nur el la Fundamento kaj
tio, kio ne troveblas en gxi, ne auxtomate estas malgxusta.

> Se chiu skribus Esperantlingve tiel, kiel mi skribas en mia interretpagharo
> (http://www.akueck.de), tiuokaze
>
> - la ortografio de Esperanto estus lau la Fundamento kaj plej vaste unueca
> kaj krome
> - estus neniaj problemoj pri iaj "transkodiloj" (pro ties ne-neceseco).

Sed se oni provas transkodigi pagxojn de la h-sistemo al unikodo, oni
suficxe facile rimarkas la problemojn. Simple pensu pri vortoj kiel
'senchava', 'flughaveno' ktp. ktp.

Amike,
Martin

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 12:18:05 PM3/23/05
to
Martin Brüggemeier:

> Sed se oni provas transkodigi pagxojn de la h-sistemo al unikodo, oni
> suficxe facile rimarkas la problemojn. Simple pensu pri vortoj kiel
> 'senchava', 'flughaveno' ktp. ktp.

Vi parolas pri _praktikaj_ konsideroj kaj problemoj (kiuj cetere estas
solveblaj). Andreo parolas pri _principaj_ konsideroj. Do vi parolas pri
diversaj aferoj kaj tial ne vere povas trovi solvon.

Chu vi, cetere, pretas same konsideri ankau la praktikajn problemojn de la
x-metodo? Estas ne nur marghena problemo, ke la litersinsekvo "aux" estas
sufiche ofta en chefe franclingvaj nomoj, kaj mi bone memoras, ke jam pli
ol unu fojon mi trovis formojn kiel "Bordeaŭ" ech en presitaj gazetoj.
Estas ja ghuste _esenca_ por Esperanto, ke aperas ie kaj tie ankau
multnaciaj nomoj, do estas esence povi distingi "aux" disde "aŭ".

Se vere necesus eviti problemojn che simpleca konvertado de helpskribo al
vera skribo, tiam oni devus uzi ne x-on, sed formojn kiel ekz-e ˆcapelo,
a˘uto (ne ^capelo, a^uto!), kaj tio ne kreus malpli da problemoj ol la
veraj literoj.

Estas eble utile rememorigi pri la jena Lingva Respondo de LLZ:

"Sinjoro F.-V. Lorenc konsilas, ke la presejoj, kiuj ne havas la signetojn
superliterajn, uzu anstatau ili kaj anstatau _h_ -- apostrofon returnitan
post la litero; ekzemple "ac`eti" anstatau "acheti". De nia flanko ni devas
nur peti, ke se oni volos uzi tiun chi konsilon, oni ne forgesu klarigi en
la komenco de la presata verko la signifon de tiu chi returnita apostrofo."

unua publikigo: La Esperantisto, 1890, p. 54 -- 55

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 12:22:12 PM3/23/05
to

"Martin Br ü ggemeier" <martin.br...@tiscali.de> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:BE6756E1.1DCC2%martin.br...@tiscali.de...

>
> Sed se oni provas transkodigi pagxojn de la h-sistemo al unikodo, oni
> suficxe facile rimarkas la problemojn. Simple pensu pri vortoj kiel
> 'senchava', 'flughaveno' ktp. ktp.
>

Oni skribu tiajn vortojn jene: senc-hava, flug-haveno. Kaj en la de mi
konataj kazoj, je kiuj "u" malantau "a", "e" au "o" ne transskribas u-on
hoketitan, mi same uzas dividostrekon: bala-u, ne-ulo, poste-ulo.

En kiuj kazoj "u" malantau "a", "e" au "o" ne transskribas u-on hoketitan
kaj aldone al tio devas esti konsiderata kiel parto de tiu radiko, al kiu
apartenas ankau la antaua vokalo?

Mi konjektas, ke ekzistas nur malmultaj tiaj kazoj. Kaj bona transkodilo
certe sukcese pritraktas ilin.

Mi ne estas certa pri la landnomo "Nauro":

En la Krause-vortaro, la "u" estas hoketita, sed ghi estas ne-hoketita en la
UEA-Jarlibroj 2003 kaj 2004.

Chu temas pri pres-eraroj?

Au chu ambau skribmanieroj (kaj prononcmanieroj) estas ghustaj?

Remush

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 12:26:02 PM3/23/05
to

"Martin Br ü ggemeier" <martin.br...@tiscali.de> wrote in message
news:BE671811.1DCAE%martin.br...@tiscali.de...

> Am 23.03.2005 12:46 Uhr schrieb Remush unter Rem...@telenet.be:
>
>
>> Mi atendos ke vi modifu la programon ce
>> file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Ray/My%20Documents/pandora/esperanto/alu
>> nikodo.html
>

Erara ligilo:
1) iru al http://users.pandora.be/raymond.gerard/esperanto/alunikodo.html
2) en Firefox >Montru>la fonton
3) savu en vian propran diskon
4) modifu loke la programon
5) kontrolu ke gi funkcias kiel antauvidite

Tiam, petu denove, mi sendos al vi la sekvon de la klarigo. ;-)

Remus (Belgio)

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 12:33:26 PM3/23/05
to
Remush:
> Remus (Belgio)

Kara Remuso,

chu vi _iam_ sukcesos sendi Unikode? Au chu vi intence forigas chiujn
supersignojn? Vi nenie en la kapinformoj de viaj afishoj indikas la uzendan
tiparon.

Helpa povus esti ankau transiro al inteligenta programo. Se oni uzas idiotan
programon (ekz-e Microsoft Outlook Express 6), necesas inteligenta uzanto
por sendi la chapelojn. Mi, kontraste, uzas inteligentan programon (KNode
0.7.2), tial sufichas ech idiota uzanto por transsendi chapelojn. ;)

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 12:45:39 PM3/23/05
to

"Sebastian Hartwig" <s...@mailinator.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d1s8ce$jvv$00$1...@news.t-online.com...

>
> Chu vi, cetere, pretas same konsideri ankau la praktikajn problemojn de la
> x-metodo? Estas ne nur marghena problemo, ke la litersinsekvo "aux" estas
> sufiche ofta en chefe franclingvaj nomoj, kaj mi bone memoras, ke jam pli
> ol unu fojon mi trovis formojn kiel "Bordeaŭ" ech en presitaj gazetoj.

Eble la konvertilo je http://konvertilo.dr.ag/ estis uzita. Oni provu
"ne-konverti" la "ux", ekzemple en la vortoj "Bordeaux" kaj "Cuxhaven" ;-)

Remush

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 1:35:33 PM3/23/05
to

"Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d1s8k6$169$04$1...@news.t-online.com...

>
> "Martin Br ü ggemeier" <martin.br...@tiscali.de> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:BE6756E1.1DCC2%martin.br...@tiscali.de...
>>
>> Sed se oni provas transkodigi pagxojn de la h-sistemo al unikodo, oni
>> suficxe facile rimarkas la problemojn. Simple pensu pri vortoj kiel
>> 'senchava', 'flughaveno' ktp. ktp.
>>
>
> Oni skribu tiajn vortojn jene: senc-hava, flug-haveno. Kaj en la de mi
> konataj kazoj, je kiuj "u" malantau "a", "e" au "o" ne transskribas u-on
> hoketitan, mi same uzas dividostrekon: bala-u, ne-ulo, poste-ulo.


Bone. Mi sekvis vian konsilon (au pli guste ordonon) kaj uzante la programon
ce http://users.pandora.be/raymond.gerard/esperanto/alunikodo.html
(korektita adreso)
mi atingis jenan nekontentigan rezulton :

1a provo)

aerodromo: flug-haveno
ci: vi (Thou s-halt not use "ci"!)
campanjo: saumvino (FR c-hampagne)
cet/cetejo: babili/babilejo (EN to c-hat=babili)
hospitalo: malsanulejo (DE Krankenha-us)
kanzono: kanteto* (FR gars/garçon, ours/ourson, c-hant/c-hanson)
parkere: elkape, perkore (FR "par coe-ur", EN "by heart")
pitc: tonalteco (EN pitc-h)
rakedo: (sporto) batilo (DE Sc-hläger, HU ûtô)
sriki: ekkrii (EN s-hriek?)
vinco: tirilo (FR treuil, EN winc-h)

2a provo)

aerodromo: flug-haveno


ci: vi (Thou salt not use "ci"!)

campanjo: saumvino (FR campagne)


cet/cetejo: babili/babilejo (EN to cat=babili)
hospitalo: malsanulejo (DE Krankenhaus)

kanzono: kanteto* (FR gars/garçon, ours/ourson, cant/canson)


parkere: elkape, perkore (FR "par coeur", EN "by heart")
pitco: tonalteco (EN pitc)

rakedo: (sporto) batilo (DE Scläger, HU ûtô)


sriki: ekkrii (EN sriek?)
vinco: tirilo (FR treuil, EN winc)


Krome, cu la horizontala streketo estas fundamenta? Mi kredis ke Z skribis
flug'haven'o, nur kiam la tut'a tekst'o est'is skrib'it'a tia'manier'e :
saum'vin'o babil'ej'o mal'san'ul'ej'o kant'et'o el'kap'e ton'alt'ec'o
bat'il'o ek'kri'i tir'il'o

Pri kiu fundament'o vi parol'as? Montr'u ekzempl'o'n ce Z.

1)La h-skribada ne estas oportuna por solvi mian teknikan problemon.
2)Se me alkutimigas al la x-skribado, mi ne povas facile reveni al la
h-skribado.
3)La c^ skribado estas tre malagrabla kiam oni tajpas per azerty (franca)
ekzemple "cê gî" anstatau "ce gi" kiam oni tajpas "c^e g^i".
4)La ux skribado ne taugas kiam oni tajpas Esperante kaj france (mi uzas vx)
5)Mi ecµ provis aliaj karaktrojn sed mi mabone vidas tajperarojn.
6)Mi instalis unikodon kaj kiameble uzas gin, sed foje miaj akcentoj
perdigas, kiam mi respondas al UTF-8 malkapabla uzanto.


Remus (Belgio)


Remush

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 1:50:01 PM3/23/05
to

"Sebastian Hartwig" <s...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:d1s98r$t5a$01$1...@news.t-online.com...

Respondo aliloke...

Remus (Belgio)
Sendu unikode ec kiam vi skribas surogate

... kiel la plimultaj uzantoj faras...
ec KNode kapablas (evidente vi ne makovris kiel, kaj nur hazarde sendas
unikode).
Kiam vi kapablos, resendu vian agrablan mesagon kun la capelitaj literoj.
Mi tiam volonte agnoskos vian superan inteligentecon..;-)


Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 2:47:30 PM3/23/05
to
Remush:

> Sendu unikode ec kiam vi skribas surogate
>
> ... kiel la plimultaj uzantoj faras...
> ec KNode kapablas (evidente vi ne makovris kiel, kaj nur hazarde sendas
> unikode).
> Kiam vi kapablos, resendu vian agrablan mesagon kun la capelitaj literoj.
> Mi tiam volonte agnoskos vian superan inteligentecon..;-)

*suspir'*

1-e: Mi scias, ke KNode kapablas. Tial mi parolis pri KNode.

2-e: Ankau MS Outlook Express kapablas. Kial vi do daure sendas ne-unikode,
perdigante viajn supersignojn?

3-e: Mia 'supera inteligenteco' konsistas en uzado de programo kun 'supera
inteligenteco'.

4-e: Mi sendas Unikode, se la afisho enhavas Esperantajn literojn au
literojn el diversaj kodpaghoj.

5-e: Se afisho ne enhavas tiajn literojn, mi sendas en pli oportuna kodigo
(au simple tiu de la respondata afisho). Aliflanke, vi ja provadas sendi
chapelitajn literojn, do estus VI, kiu devus sendi Unikode. Kial vi DAURE
ne faras tion? Denove via afisho (malgrau la anonco "[unikodo]"!) NE
enhavis kododeklaron!

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 2:55:19 PM3/23/05
to
Sebastian Hartwig <s...@mailinator.com>:

> Vi parolas pri _praktikaj_ konsideroj kaj problemoj (kiuj cetere estas
> solveblaj). Andreo parolas pri _principaj_ konsideroj. Do vi parolas
> pri diversaj aferoj kaj tial ne vere povas trovi solvon.

Kial ni ne ĝojas, ke la problemo jam ne plu ekzistas?

Remush

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 3:13:31 PM3/23/05
to

"Sebastian Hartwig" <s...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:d1sh4d$8sd$01$1...@news.t-online.com...

> 4-e: Mi sendas Unikode, se la afisho enhavas Esperantajn literojn au
> literojn el diversaj kodpaghoj.

Kiel diable vi scias kiel respondi al iu kiu ne uzas supersignojn?
Provu denove

Raymond (Belgique)

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 3:32:43 PM3/23/05
to

"Remush" <Rem...@telenet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:tTi0e.44196$OX.38...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>

Chu vi celas jenon ?-)

> Respondo aliloke...
>
> Remuŝ (Belgio)
> Sendu unikode eĉ kiam vi skribas surogate


>
> ... kiel la plimultaj uzantoj faras...

> eĉ KNode kapablas (evidente vi ne makovris kiel, kaj nur hazarde sendas
> unikode).
> Kiam vi kapablos, resendu vian agrablan mesaĝon kun la ĉapelitaj literoj.


> Mi tiam volonte agnoskos vian superan inteligentecon..;-)

--

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 3:56:10 PM3/23/05
to

"Remush" <Rem...@telenet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:VFi0e.44188$3p4.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>
> "Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:d1s8k6$169$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> "Martin Br ggemeier" <martin.br...@tiscali.de> schrieb im

>> Newsbeitrag news:BE6756E1.1DCC2%martin.br...@tiscali.de...
>>>
>>> Sed se oni provas transkodigi pagxojn de la h-sistemo al unikodo, oni
>>> suficxe facile rimarkas la problemojn. Simple pensu pri vortoj kiel
>>> 'senchava', 'flughaveno' ktp. ktp.
>>>
>>
>> Oni skribu tiajn vortojn jene: senc-hava, flug-haveno. Kaj en la de mi
>> konataj kazoj, je kiuj "u" malantau "a", "e" au "o" ne transskribas u-on
>> hoketitan, mi same uzas dividostrekon: bala-u, ne-ulo, poste-ulo.
>
>
> Bone. Mi sekvis vian konsilon (au pli guste ordonon) kaj uzante la
> programon ce
> http://users.pandora.be/raymond.gerard/esperanto/alunikodo.html (korektita
> adreso)
> mi atingis jenan nekontentigan rezulton :
>

Se programo ne kontentigas vin, tiuokaze ghin au plibonigu au forgesu.

>
> Krome, cu la horizontala streketo estas fundamenta?

Jes. Estas ekzemploj en la Fundamento: "chi-tiea" (sed: "chi tie", "chi
tiu", "chi tio"); dek-duon; tricent-sesdek-sesono; 16-regula.

> Mi kredis ke Z skribis flug'haven'o, nur kiam la tut'a tekst'o est'is
> skrib'it'a tia'manier'e :
> saum'vin'o babil'ej'o mal'san'ul'ej'o kant'et'o el'kap'e ton'alt'ec'o
> bat'il'o ek'kri'i tir'il'o
>

Mi ne kredis nek kredas ion tian.

> Pri kiu fundament'o vi parol'as? Montr'u ekzempl'o'n ce Z.
>

Mi rilatas al la verko "Fundamento de Esperanto" de L. L. Zamenhof.
Ekzemplojn pri la apero de dividostrekoj en ghi bonvole vidu supren.

> 6)Mi instalis unikodon kaj kiameble uzas gin, sed foje miaj akcentoj
> perdigas, kiam mi respondas al UTF-8 malkapabla uzanto.
>

Kaj mi ofte legis chi tie, ke Unikodo estas _la_ solvo de chiaj
supersigno-problemoj, kaj ne la problemo mem ;-)

Stefano MacGregor

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 3:56:45 PM3/23/05
to
<lsu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1111467883.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> 1) Why would "vira irlandano" be better than "virirlandano"?

Personal opinion, based on how it sounds, and how it might be used.
Actually, if you're speaking of a person known to be male, just use
"irlandano", because the maleness is already specified by context.

> 2) So women get their own pronoun, but men have to make do with a
> pronoun that means "he" or "it" or "he or she" or "whoever". I'm
> starting to feel oppressed here.

Close. Leave out "it".

<tongue-in-cheek>Your feeling is decidedly non-PC. If there is ever any
kind of difference between male and female, the female, by definition,
is discriminated against. If the situation were reversed, she would
still be discriminated against. The feminists need something to bitch
about, whether it makes any sense or not.</tongue-in-cheek>

> 3) You wrote: "Actually, this is bullshit. The word "she" is not
> non-gender-specific; it is specifically feminine. What you are doing
> is using "she" instead of "he" as the non-sex-specific pronoun."
>
> Do you mean "bullshit" in the sense of "incorrect terminology"
> ('gender' vs. 'sex') or in the sense of "misguided" (using 'she'
> rather
> than 'he')? Or both? Either way, I have to admit that your powers of
> persuasion are certainly enhanced by labeling what I've said with
> scatalogical invective -- if I was doubting you before, I'm sure not
> now!

I meant that claiming that the word "she" is "non-gender-specifie" is a
stupid thing to say, like saying that "short" is "non-height-specific"
or "stupid" is "non-intelligence-specific". Gender is what this is
about.

GRAMMAR LESSON

In Indo-European languages in general, and also Semitic languages, but
not necessarily in all languages, the masculine gender is considered
"untaged". There are tagged/untagged pairs of adjectives, too.

For example, if I asked "How stupid is your girlfriend?", you would
percieve this as implying that I am calling her stupid. If I asked,
"How smart is your girlfriend?", this might not imply that she is smart.
The word "stupid" is tagged; the word "smart" is untagged.

"How short is your son?" This implies that he is short. "How tall is
your son?" This does not imply that I think he is tall.

"How narrow is your front door?" This implies that the door is narrow.
"How wide is your front door?" I am merely asking about its width, and
making no assumptions.

Now then.

"If someone comes in looking for a lost purse, send her to me." The
pronoun "her" specifies that the hypothetical person I am speaking of is
likely to be female.

"If someone comes in looking for a lost calculator, send him to me."
The pronoun "him" is untagged, and thus not strong enough to specify
that I believe that such a person is necessarily male.

Again, here's how gender works in Indo-European and Semitic languages:
feminine implies[1] that the person's sex is female; masculine
implies[1] that the person's sex is male =or= unknown =or= irrelevant.
There are more possible meanings to the masculine gender than to the
feminine. Live with it.

Interlingua, an invented language like Esperanto, has these exact rules
for gender specified in the official grammar.

Gender works differently in other languages.

As I understand it, Finnish has two genders, and a pronoun for each.
Words denoting men and women are one gender, and words denoting things
are the other.

Swahili has eight genders, and grammatically, verbs give the genders of
both the subject and object of the sentence. Men and women are one
gender; various classes of things are the other genders.

Japanese has no concept of gender[2]. They know what sex a person is,
but words denoting them are neither masculine or feminine.

> "Learn the difference between gender and sex, and you'll be all
> right."
> Thanks for that conditional vote of confidence, though I'm not sure I
> deserve it, being a sexist-crap gender-sensitive bullshit artist, and
> all. I'll try to shape up before venturing again into the
> rough-and-tumble world of Esperanto!

Hey! It's not all that bad. Not everyone is as pedantic about things
like this as I am.

--
Stefano
[1] Well, not always. In Italian, if you speak of a "person", you must
use a feminine pronoun to refer back to the word for "person". If you
speak of a "soprano", you must use a masculine pronoun. In German, if
you speak of a "girl", you really ought to use a neuter pronoun, but
this is changing as it did long ago in English. The English words
"woman" and "wife" are now both feminine, not respectively masculine and
neuter, as they once were.
[2] An argument could be made, though, that pencils, trees, cigars, and
telephone poles are one gender; leaves, sheets, and playing cards are
another; and birds and rabbits are still another. But no one actually
does this.

Stefano MacGregor

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 4:05:18 PM3/23/05
to
"Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d1rat8$i2l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...

> I would not say that I "propagandize" someone asking for information
> but that I inform him about the correct orthography of Esperanto.

Yes, this is =correct= orthography. However, sometimes, such as in
text-messaging on a American cell-phone, it is impossible orthography.
We have a choice then: either decide that it is forbidden to use
Esperanto in such text-messaging, or realize that there must be an
alternative coding method for transmitting these letters. The x-method
is one of these. It's ugly, but it works.

--
Stefano

Sebastian Hartwig

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 4:19:14 PM3/23/05
to
Remush:

>> 4-e: Mi sendas Unikode, se la afisho enhavas Esperantajn literojn au
>> literojn el diversaj kodpaghoj.
>
> Kiel diable vi scias kiel respondi al iu kiu ne uzas supersignojn?
> Provu denove

??? Plena nekompreno. Pri kio vi pepas?

Sebastiano

--
sebastian.hartwigQinterlingue.org

Andreas Kueck

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 4:49:01 PM3/23/05
to

"Stefano MacGregor" <esper...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lSk0e.15071$Fy.3718@okepread04...

> "Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:d1rat8$i2l$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>> I would not say that I "propagandize" someone asking for information but
>> that I inform him about the correct orthography of Esperanto.
>
> Yes, this is =correct= orthography. However, sometimes, such as in
> text-messaging on a American cell-phone, it is impossible orthography.

Keeping the correct orthography of Esperanto _is_ possible even if you
cannot use letters with diacritical signs: Use ch, gh, hh, jh, sh, resp. u.
The creator of Esperanto clearly defined that. It seems to be just as if
many esperantists do not know that or, for any other reason, do not follow
the respective rules.

> We have a choice then: either decide that it is forbidden to use
> Esperanto in such text-messaging, or realize that there must be an
> alternative coding method for transmitting these letters. The x-method is
> one of these.

You forget to mention a third option:

Text-messaging in Esperanto using its correct orthography, this is using ch,
gh, hh, jh, sh, and u for the respective letters with diacritical signs.

Marko Rauhamaa

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 5:11:20 PM3/23/05
to
"Stefano MacGregor" <esper...@yahoo.com>:

> In Indo-European languages in general, and also Semitic languages, but
> not necessarily in all languages, the masculine gender is considered
> "untaged".

Ĉu vere?

Mi ne malkonsentas vian neevidentan aserton, sed ŝajnas al mi, ke ĝis
antaŭ mallonge la hindeŭropaj pronomoj estis seksmarkitaj, sed oni tre
malofte devis paroli seksneŭtrale.

> As I understand it, Finnish has two genders, and a pronoun for each.
> Words denoting men and women are one gender, and words denoting things
> are the other.

Tio estas tre stranga maniero esprimi la aferon. Al la suoma lingvo tute
mankas gramatika sekso. Estas ses personpronomoj, kiuj neniel markas la
sekson sed kiujn oni povas uzi nur por animuloj (homoj, dioj, Mickey
Mouse). Al bestoj kaj objektoj mankas personpronomo, sed oni uzas
anstataŭe memstarajn montropronomojn (do ĝuste male al esperanto, kies
memstaraj montropronomoj aludas al animuloj).

Estas krome interese, ke kvankam la suomaj personpronomoj estas
seksneŭtraj, la suoma lingvo ne tute evitas la pronomproblemon, ĉar la
personpronomoj aludas al _konataj_ homoj. Do suomlingvulo ne povas diri:

Ĉiu rajtas fari, kion ri volas.
Homo devas fari, kion ri povas.

kiu signifus:

Ĉiu rajtas fari, kion la priparolata homo volas.
Homo devas fari, kion la priparolata homo povas.

Anstataŭe suomlingvulo devas esprimi:

Ĉiu rajtas fari, kion volas.
Homo devas fari sian povotaĵon.

Bertilo Wennergren

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 6:11:38 PM3/23/05
to
Andreas Kueck:

> Mi ne estas certa pri la landnomo "Nauro":

> En la Krause-vortaro, la "u" estas hoketita, sed ghi estas ne-hoketita en la
> UEA-Jarlibroj 2003 kaj 2004.

Laŭ la rekomendoj de la Akademio estu "Nauro" (sen hoketo):

http://www.akademio-de-esperanto.loka/decidoj/landnomoj/normaj_landnomoj.html

PIV2002 samopinias.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <http://www.bertilow.com>

Thomas Bushnell, BSG

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 7:39:01 PM3/23/05
to
"Andreas Kueck" <AKu...@t-online.de> writes:

> Keeping the correct orthography of Esperanto _is_ possible even if you
> cannot use letters with diacritical signs: Use ch, gh, hh, jh, sh,
> resp. u. The creator of Esperanto clearly defined that. It seems to be
> just as if many esperantists do not know that or, for any other
> reason, do not follow the respective rules.

The problem is that this is ambiguous orthography. The X method has
the advantage of being unambigous.

Arnold Victor

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 9:10:38 PM3/23/05
to
Andreas Kueck wrote:
>
> "Arnold Victor" <arvi...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3ac1ihF...@individual.net...
>
>> Andreas Kueck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> <lsu...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> news:1111427030.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> 4) Has the "x"-for-circumflex method won out over the "h"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An "'x'-for-circumflex method" does not exist in Esperanto. People
>>> who use the letter x in Esperanto words just use a wrong spelling
>>> (orthography), and in no way a "method" or "system". So ist es, und
>>> so bleibt es! (So is it, and so remains it!)
>>>
>>
>> We have had this out before, but since you intentionally propagandize
>> someone asking for information,

>>
>
> I would not say that I "propagandize" someone asking for information but
> that I inform him about the correct orthography of Esperanto.
>

I would say you announce your interpretation of what is correct as
"correct" and other interpretations as "wrong." That is elevating your
opinion to law. And your idea of "correct orthography' in Esperanto is
not shared by the majority of Esperantist, who use other orthographies.
Or do you have some office as Esperanto lawgiver?

>> I will reassert my opposing view:
>> "x" means that there is a supersign on the preceeding letter. It
>> exists in Esperanto usage and overwhelmingly predominates in any
>> honest search-count of Esperanto usage in the internet. It is an
>> easier system in computer usage
>
>
> All these things do not turn wrong orthography into correct orthography.
> And intentionally or consciously using wrong orthography is a very bad
> doing to Esperanto.
>

It is a very bad thing for Esperanto, when you arrogate to yourself the
right to assign judgements as to "correct" and "wrong." Fortunately even
a cursory survey of orthography in this newsgroup shows the vanity of
your harmful presumption of authority.

>> ...
>

--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

lsu...@home.com

unread,
Mar 23, 2005, 11:03:41 PM3/23/05
to
Stefano MacGregor wrote:
> <lsu...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1111467883.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 1) Why would "vira irlandano" be better than "virirlandano"?
>
> Personal opinion, based on how it sounds, and how it might be used.
> Actually, if you're speaking of a person known to be male, just use
> "irlandano", because the maleness is already specified by context.

By parallelism, would you say that "virina irlandano" sounds better
than "irlandanino"?

>
> > 2) So women get their own pronoun, but men have to make do with a
> > pronoun that means "he" or "it" or "he or she" or "whoever". I'm
> > starting to feel oppressed here.
>
> Close. Leave out "it".
>
> <tongue-in-cheek>Your feeling is decidedly non-PC. If there is ever
any
> kind of difference between male and female, the female, by
definition,
> is discriminated against. If the situation were reversed, she would
> still be discriminated against. The feminists need something to
bitch
> about, whether it makes any sense or not.</tongue-in-cheek>
>

Your cheek and tongue notwithstanding, it seems that you, like me, have
an axe to grind here. We're just on opposite sides of the blade.

> > 3) You wrote: "Actually, this is bullshit. The word "she" is not
> > non-gender-specific; it is specifically feminine. What you are
doing
> > is using "she" instead of "he" as the non-sex-specific pronoun."
> >
> > Do you mean "bullshit" in the sense of "incorrect terminology"
> > ('gender' vs. 'sex') or in the sense of "misguided" (using 'she'
> > rather
> > than 'he')? Or both? Either way, I have to admit that your powers
of
> > persuasion are certainly enhanced by labeling what I've said with
> > scatalogical invective -- if I was doubting you before, I'm sure
not
> > now!
>
> I meant that claiming that the word "she" is "non-gender-specifie" is
a
> stupid thing to say, like saying that "short" is
"non-height-specific"
> or "stupid" is "non-intelligence-specific". Gender is what this is
> about.
>
> GRAMMAR LESSON
>

That is an excellent lesson, thanks. I was familiar with connotation,
of course, but not "tagging". A clarification please: Is "bullshit"
tagged as compared to "incorrect"? That is, if you describe what I say
as "bullshit", I infer that you believe that I am either lying or
saying something stupid. Is this an example of tagging, or merely
connotation?

As to whether I _was_ lying or saying something stupid...I assure you,
the situation in my workplace as I described it does exist. If I refer
to a hypothetical editor with the pronoun "he", I am referring to one
of the few men on the staff; with "she", I'm making no claim as to the
editor's sex. I don't see why it's stupid to say something that is true
(unless it's pointlessly hurtful).

---SNIP---


>
> "How short is your son?" This implies that he is short. "How tall
is
> your son?" This does not imply that I think he is tall.

I've heard that Mandarin makes a 3-way distinction; it has short words
for "tall", "short", and "of average height". Has any similar mechanism
arisen in Esperanto?

---SNIP---


>
> Now then.
>
> "If someone comes in looking for a lost purse, send her to me." The
> pronoun "her" specifies that the hypothetical person I am speaking of
is
> likely to be female.
>
> "If someone comes in looking for a lost calculator, send him to me."
> The pronoun "him" is untagged, and thus not strong enough to specify
> that I believe that such a person is necessarily male.
>

This seems backward to me. In the context of someone looking for a
purse, it seems to me that saying "...send him to me" would imply that
I really expect it to be a male, contrary to ordinary expectations.
Whereas "...send her to me" would conform to ordinary expectations and
thus not make a strong claim about the sex of the looker either way.
No?

> Again, here's how gender works in Indo-European and Semitic
languages:
> feminine implies[1] that the person's sex is female; masculine
> implies[1] that the person's sex is male =or= unknown =or=
irrelevant.
> There are more possible meanings to the masculine gender than to the
> feminine.

I'm seeing that now, at least in most contexts.

> Live with it.

No, thank you.

---SNIP---


>
> > "Learn the difference between gender and sex, and you'll be all
> > right."
> > Thanks for that conditional vote of confidence, though I'm not sure
I
> > deserve it, being a sexist-crap gender-sensitive bullshit artist,
and
> > all. I'll try to shape up before venturing again into the
> > rough-and-tumble world of Esperanto!
>
> Hey! It's not all that bad. Not everyone is as pedantic about
things
> like this as I am.
>

I'm not disturbed by your pedantry, but by your rudeness. However, it
may be that "bullshit" and "crap" and "stupid" do not connote the same
things where you're from as they do where I'm from. So let's let it go.

I'm learning a lot from your website, and really appreciate the
explanation of tagging. Thank you, Stefano.

---SNIP---

-- Larry

Stefano MacGregor

unread,
Mar 24, 2005, 1:07:35 AM3/24/05
to
<lsu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1111637021.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> By parallelism, would you say that "virina irlandano" sounds better
> than "irlandanino"?

No, if I had to specify, I would say "ina irlandano". But again, more
than "irlandano" is usually unnecessary, as something else in the
discussion would probably specify the person's sex, if it is relevant.

> Your cheek and tongue notwithstanding, it seems that you, like me,
> have
> an axe to grind here. We're just on opposite sides of the blade.

Sounds about right.

[...]

> That is an excellent lesson, thanks. I was familiar with connotation,
> of course, but not "tagging". A clarification please: Is "bullshit"
> tagged as compared to "incorrect"? That is, if you describe what I say
> as "bullshit", I infer that you believe that I am either lying or
> saying something stupid. Is this an example of tagging, or merely
> connotation?

Both tagged, as opposite of untagged "correct". Same denotation,
different connotations.

You've caught me in a usage of innapropriate terminology: "bullshit" is
a lie, and I should have said "horse shit", which is nonsense. Not to
be confused with "chicken shit" or "ape shit", which are different
matters entirely. My apologies.

> As to whether I _was_ lying or saying something stupid...I assure you,
> the situation in my workplace as I described it does exist. If I refer
> to a hypothetical editor with the pronoun "he", I am referring to one
> of the few men on the staff; with "she", I'm making no claim as to the
> editor's sex. I don't see why it's stupid to say something that is
> true
> (unless it's pointlessly hurtful).

It sounds like you're using a reasonable exception to the general rule,
sort of like using the untagged pronoun "she" with the noun "nurse" as
its antecedent.

> I've heard that Mandarin makes a 3-way distinction; it has short words
> for "tall", "short", and "of average height". Has any similar
> mechanism
> arisen in Esperanto?

Nope: same general two-way distinction as in English, except that it's
nearly always openly obvious which of two adjectives is the untagged
one: the one without the prefix "mal-". So "alta" (tall) is untagged,
and "malalta" (short) is tagged.

Esperanto has a strange untagged word here: "juna" (young). It would
seem that the question "How old is he?" would be expressed as the
equivalent of "How young is he?" in order to be untagged. However, the
question would actually be phrased as "Kiom li agas?" (How-much he
has-age?), sidestepping the apparent problem.

[...]

> This seems backward to me. In the context of someone looking for a
> purse, it seems to me that saying "...send him to me" would imply that
> I really expect it to be a male, contrary to ordinary expectations.
> Whereas "...send her to me" would conform to ordinary expectations and
> thus not make a strong claim about the sex of the looker either way.
> No?

You could look at it that way. Two explanations of the same phenomenon.

>