eshapard:

Tempodivalse:
I think one problem is that some people will parse the word as ge-patrano rather than gepatr-ano - which still looks jarring because you're using singular ge-.

Yes, that is a problem; ge-patrano vs gepatr-ano.

I know there are rules that tell you that a hundideto is a little puppy and not the pup of a small dog (hundetido).

Are there no such rules about prefixes?

Your example, hundideto, has only suffixes. With suffixes, it's easy: just parse them from left to right. Each affix modifies the entirety of the word before it. Hundo + ido = hundido; hundido + eto = hundideto.

When you have both prefixes and suffixes, much of the time it makes no real difference which way you parse it. For example, refarebla could be "re-farebla" or "refar-ebla" - virtually identical.

However, there are probably situations where the order of affixes is more significant, and that gets us into a big technical mess. As I recall, PAG devotes a huge section to affix formation rules.

Most of that is purely academic, though. In practice, people will normally intuit the correct parsing, oddities like gepatrano notwithstanding.

Tempodivalse:

orthohawk:

Tempodivalse:

Thee is missing the whole point: the meaning ::as it stands now::, yes, but assign/allow the ::additional:: meaning of epicene when used on a singular noun.

Fair enough. Yes, I think I got your point, I just think the additional definition of ge- is too dissimilar from the established one.

Perhaps it's the logician in me: there is a big difference between exclusive disjunction (A XOR B) and conjunction (A ^ B). Ge- currently has the latter role (e.g. female and male). It seems odd to also assign it the former role in the singular (female XOR male).

So I'm thinking thee has the same problem with "krom"?

No. Both the disjunctive and conjunctive meanings of krom are well-established - just as ankaŭ can be either an inclusive or exclusive disjunction.

Maybe non-ideal from a logical perspective, but it has plenty of parallels in national languages.

Look, we can debate the logical merits or demerits of a certain form all we want, but ultimately precedent and accepted usage rule - as I indicated in my recent thread "Language is arbitrary - deal with it".

Well, I'm not being b::tchy here; just trying to understand thy objection to ge+singular=epicene. Yes, there is a logical problem with krom (I had no idea about ankaux) but that doesn't seem to bother thee much regarding its use. So, to me, to use the logic argument against the additional use of "ge" is a bit.........off/odd/something.
Now, if thee'd said, "I just don't like it" I'd be all, "Oh, OK. well sucks to be thee, eh?. I'll use ge on a singular noun despite thy dislike of it" (and I still will, just not with the attitude, haha) and that would have been the end of it. I'd still like thee .

Oops! I meant to say aŭ can be both an inclusive or exclusive disjunction - as it is in pretty much every language. (Not ankaŭ.) "X or Y" has two meanings: 1) "X and/or Y" and 2) "X or Y, but not both". [1]

In fact, I don't know of any language (beside formal logics) in which this distinction is routinely made - maybe Lojban?

So, to me, to use the logic argument against the additional use of "ge" is a bit.........off/odd/something.

Well, I wasn't so much using that as an argument, but rather explaining why it felt jarring to me. The reason similar logical ambiguities in other words don't bother me, is because I'm already used to them.

----

[1] Rarely, you will see the awful portmanteau kaŭ (kaj + aŭ) for the first meaning.

Tempodivalse:Oops! I meant to say aŭ can be both an inclusive or exclusive disjunction - as it is in pretty much every language. (Not ankaŭ.) "X or Y" has two meanings: 1) "X and/or Y" and 2) "X or Y, but not both". [1]

In fact, I don't know of any language (beside formal logics) in which this distinction is routinely made - maybe Lojban?

So, to me, to use the logic argument against the additional use of "ge" is a bit.........off/odd/something.

Well, I wasn't so much using that as an argument, but rather explaining why it felt jarring to me. The reason similar logical ambiguities in other words don't bother me, is because I'm already used to them.

----

[1] Rarely, you will see the awful portmanteau kaŭ (kaj + aŭ) for the first meaning.

REally?? I never have perceived X or Y as being also X and/or Y....if I mean the latter, that's what I say/write. Hmm.. I think Latin had a distinction....or maybe I'm misremembering. I'll have to look it up now. Gee thanks!
(and on a side note, I'm not sure I dislike "kaux"

Guess thee'll have to get used to the "ge- thing"

Tempodivalse:Oops! I meant to say aŭ can be both an inclusive or exclusive disjunction - as it is in pretty much every language. (Not ankaŭ.) "X or Y" has two meanings: 1) "X and/or Y" and 2) "X or Y, but not both". [1]

In fact, I don't know of any language (beside formal logics) in which this distinction is routinely made - maybe Lojban?

Oh no! Now people are going to want an exclusive or conjunction for Esperanto... ekluzaŭ??

REally?? I never have perceived X or Y as being also X and/or Y....if I mean the latter, that's what I say/write. Hmm.. I think Latin had a distinction....or maybe I'm misremembering. I'll have to look it up now. Gee thanks!

Part of my training as a philosopher involved the relationship between (formal) logic and natural language. The latter is often quite unclear, in ways that people don't even realise. The ambiguity of "or" is well known:

-->Her grades are so good that she's either very bright or studies hard.

It's possible that she's both very bright and studies hard. However:

-->Will you take the prize behind door 2 or open door 1? (on a game show)

You can only do one of the two things, not both.

Guess thee'll have to get used to the "ge- thing"

I don't really care if you want to use ge-, or if other people want to use non-standard terminology. I'll probably still figure out what you're saying. I will likely consider it sub-standard or a dialect, though - kind of like failing to conjugate an English verb correctly. Nothing personal

Tempodivalse:

REally?? I never have perceived X or Y as being also X and/or Y....if I mean the latter, that's what I say/write. Hmm.. I think Latin had a distinction....or maybe I'm misremembering. I'll have to look it up now. Gee thanks!

Part of my training as a philosopher involved the relationship between (formal) logic and natural language. The latter is often quite unclear, in ways that people don't even realise. The ambiguity of "or" is well known:

-->Her grades are so good that she's either very bright or studies hard.

It's possible that she's both very bright and studies hard. However:

-->Will you take the prize behind door 2 or open door 1? (on a game show)

You can only do one of the two things, not both.

Wow! I'd never have cottoned onto that without thy explanation here. Cool

Here is a simple non ambiguous way to introduce icx with zero disruption to exisiting vocabulary.
It removes the need for male only words for different species, eg tauro, stalono.
It removes the need to find workarounds to express the concept of "parent".
It bypasses the whole "discussion" (read ongoing warfare) about how to express gender neutral forms of the 20(ish) family/relationship terms.
The Ido language used a similar technique to make this a non issue more than 100 years ago.

Bemused:Here is a simple non ambiguous way to introduce icx with zero disruption to exisiting vocabulary.
It removes the need for male only words for different species, eg tauro, stalono.
It removes the need to find workarounds to express the concept of "parent".
It bypasses the whole "discussion" (read ongoing warfare) about how to express gender neutral forms of the 20(ish) family/relationship terms.
The Ido language used a similar technique to make this a non issue more than 100 years ago.

Hm yes, I remember seeing that.

But we should keep in mind that this "ongoing warfare" is more of a typhoon in a teacup - to the large majority of Esperantists, it's just irrelevant - the original terms work just fine.

The only noteworthy issue here, I think, is how to more cleanly express some terms like "parent" other than unu el la gepatroj.

According to the link you posted, PIV lists gepatro as a possibility, but its current use is vanishingly small. Only one instance in the Tekstaro:

->Jen ebla tasko, sendube pens-instiga, por gepatro kaj gefilo: kundiskuti la verkon.

@orthohawk:

Here's a nice quote on the singular of ge-. The upshot is that you can use it, but only to indicate the presence of both genders somehow, as in the term geparo - pair consisting of male and female; or even the more jestful gedormi (which I think can go without explanation).

So adding your 2nd proposed definition of ge- (epicene singular) is more of a stretch than you may think - it may actually result in confusion, since ge- can already be used in the singular, with a different meaning. Using your definition of ge-, would gelernejo be a school for both boys and girls, or just one of the two genders? It's in the singular, after all ...

La Ondo de Esperanto:La anomalio de gepatro kuŝas do ne en ĝia singulareco, sed en ĝia renverso de la signifo de ge-. Tute male, senplurala uzo de ge- estas ne nur allasebla, sed eĉ salutinda, se ĝi nur ne renversas la signifon de la prefikso. Ekz-e ĉe la iom ŝercaj vortoj gelernejo, gedormi, gelito, geparo, geumi, gefari, gea ks, la prefikso retenas sian fundamentan signifon sekskunigan, kaj tial tiuj vortoj ne nur ne rompas la sistemon, sed eĉ atestas la sukan vivantecon de Esperanto. Ekz-e gelernejo estas lernejo, kiun frekventas lernantoj el ambaŭ seksoj, kontraste kun lernejo nur por knaboj aŭ lernejo nur por knabinoj.