Newsgroups: sci.lang.translation,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: International Language.
Message-ID: <1995Jan11.014303.7491@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <1995Jan9.215743.1541@midway.uchicago.edu> <D26yA6.vD@actrix.gen.nz> <3eu3mf$5ah@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:43:03 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang.translation:597 sci.lang:34145

In article <3eu3mf$5ah@expert.cc.purdue.edu> buttrcup@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Buttercup) writes:

[much deleted]
>As some of you have said, Esperanto is naturally sexist against females 
>due to its -IN- suffix. However, it is not sexist unless one intends it
>that way. We all know Zamenhof didn't intend this -- but intended a far
>smaller base vocabulary by using his affix system which was, to state
>simply, ingenious.

Do we?  I'm not familiar with his writings (and I don't suppose he was
ever called upon to defend his decision to derive specifically feminine
nouns from specifically masculine ones instead of vice versa, or instead
of deriving both from a noun of common gender).  It would have been
very hard for him not to have adopt a prejudice shared by the vast
majority of his contemporarie.

I'm not trying to condemn the guy for not living up to late 20th century
biases regarding gender, but I'm not willing to exculpate him either.
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
