Amikoj is now geamikoj?
I recall friends being amikoj when I did those lessons 1-1.5 years ago, but I got geamikoj multiple times during a practice session and never saw just amikoj. For example, "Adamo kaj Sofia estas geamikoj" or "La du paroj estas geamikoj"
where ge- is just redundant and amikoj works just fine. I learned specifically that amikoj didn't need ge- so it happened to stand out to me but perhaps I was wrong. Was there a change in the word used in these sentences at some point but I just never noticed? If so, why?
Edit: To put it simply, I'm just wondering if I'm just not remembering correctly or if there actually was a change.
The 'ge'-prefix is to be used with groups, to denote that the members of the group are of both sexes. So 'geamikoj' would mean 'amiko(j) kaj amikino(j)'. So, in the sentences you quote there, I can see the point of it.
'Geamiko' in the singular seems very redundant and uneccessary indeed, but perhaps it's about trying to make the word more gender neutral. Mi ne scias.
"ge-" used with the meaning "of any sex" or "of unknown sex" is IMO neither redundant nor unnecessary.
Nor is the male in suffix "-iĉ"
You might ask specifically about a male friend, but since "amiko" is "both male friend" an "friend in general/of any sex" it would help that you could use the suffix -iĉ to narrow down your question. Otherwise it would be an awkward answer:
"Do you have a male friend" = "Ĉu vi havas amiko". The questionee might interpret it as "Do you have a friend of any sex" and answer "Yes, a female friend", leading to:
"Do you have a male friend?" "Yes, a female friend!"
(I know that you could use the male prefix "vir-" here).
Or misinterpreted the oher way around:
"Do you have a friend (of any sex)?" "No, a female friend!"
None of the answers above make any sense.
With the "ge-" suffix ,and the "-iĉ" it would be perfectly clear whether you are talking about a friend in general or a male friend.
This was you could ensure that you get the right answer to the right question:
"Ĉu vi havas geamiko?" "Jes, (amikiĉo/)amikino!"
"Ĉu vi havas amikiĉo?" "Ne, amikino!"
I can easily see situations where the affixes are redundant or unnecessary, but I can also see situations where they aren't.
Notice that while oosix says she got "geamiko" several times, all the examples were plural.
karasu4 - I'm aware of what geamikoj means it just seems odd and I recall it being amikoj in the past, but thank you for the reply. I'm fairly sure geamiko doesn't work gramatically, even with the Riist reforms. I've edited my question to remove geamiko (frankly I'm not sure what I was thinking when I included it)