Exactly. You'll only see post to mean "behind" in old Esperanto (I believe Kabe used it like that) and in the expression "postaĵo" (a person's "behind"). This brings up a point worth making -- always use care when using a dictionary. Over the years, I've received countless (wrong) submissions from students who say "Li kuris postaĵo la arbo" for "He ran 'behind' the tree.". It should be "malantaŭ la arbo."
"Loka post egalas al malantaŭ"
"Por loka signifo oni kutime uzas malantaŭ."
There are basically three situations where you will see post. The second two are related.
- Old texts, for exmple Kabe used post instead of malantaŭ, as I said elsewhere in this thread. And in set expressions like postaĵo.
- Time expressions, meaning "after".
- When referring to a sequence, meaning "after". La tria domo post la strato Espero.
According to several sources, including the PIV, yes, one may say gepatro as a singular element. My preferred example of this is the teacher telling a pupil, "Have the note signed by a parent." (Havu gepatron subskribi la noton). As for other words, again the person needs to be in some relationship with the subject. So we can occasionally see Geavo, Gekuzo, or Geonklo, We will never see, in actual literature, as far as I know, Geparo.
It's not invalid, but it's still new enough of a reverse engineered concept to bother some people. But it's too useful to not use.
Personally, I prefer "parento" to "gepatro" - but it's also possible to say "unu el la gepatroj" or "patro aŭ patrinon." It's really strange that PIV includes singular "gepatro" because that appears to be the only entry in the whole work which suggests that it can mean "either sex". Even the entry under "ge-" suggests that "gepatro" is impossible:
- Pref. montranta, ke la priparolata grupo konsistas el ambaŭ seksoj
My preferred example of this is the teacher telling a pupil, "Have the note signed by a parent." (Havu gepatron subskribi la noton).
You call this an example. I suspect you came up with it yourself.
Actually, I got it (paraphrased) from David Jordan. (Pages 88, 89 of Being Colloquial) (even he said that it was iffy, but useful) I checked several other sources (Including the CEED, and others) which I was led to believe were valid, and decided that was a reasonable way to say what I've actually heard teachers say. I refer to it as a favorite, because I feel that it works and it shows how well the word works, and, unless you have a much more recent PIV than mine, I could not find parento between parenco & parentezo. I can accept that the word is a neologism, but I really haven't run across it before this.
Actually, I got it (paraphrased) from David Jordan.
There is no practical difference between making up an example with mistakes in it and paraphrasing examples so that they have mistakes in it. The phrase you cited as an example is not found in Jordan.
According to several sources, including the PIV, yes.
According to more sources, including the PIV, no. PIV contradicts itself as far as the meaning of ge- goes by including gepatro (N.B. the only singular ge- word in the whole dictionary).
Singular "gepatro" has been around as a concept for a while. Indeed, around the time that Jordan's book was new I may have even used it myself. I do not use it now.
I could not find parento
Nor would I expect you to. I simply said that I prefer parento.
I don't generally pick on people for making mistakes when they try to speak Esperanto, but if you're going to claim to know enough to weigh in on a topic like this, at least show the care to get the examples right.
I'm moving on, at this point, but for an interesting read, you might enjoy: Ĉu Esperanto konas hermafroditojn? by Gonçalo Neves, which discusses several interesting points, including whether ge- can be used with singular nouns.
Re: Parento, So a personal preference can supersede actual vetted text, or is it just something with which you feel more comfortable with?
I"m trying to understand this.
I'm also curious which part of "Have the note signed by a parent" I got wrong. Then I, too would be happy to drop this.
So a personal preference can supersede actual vetted text,
Of course not. Indeed, when I see the countless comments on this forum where people say they "prefer" this or that, sometimes it's all I can do not to reply that nobody cares about their "preference." I don't really expect people to care about mine.
My point, maybe, is that this "vetted text" is actually just someone else's personal preference. The PIV is not a bible. It contains mistakes, and it should be obvious that the entry that you quoted was a last minute entry and possibly the result of a single individual.
I provided references to other material (including the PIV itself) to explain why singular gepatro is inconsistent.
As for everything else, I really did intend to move on after my previous comment.