"The chicken is an animal and lives."
Translation:La koko estas besto kaj vivas.
Why is "kokino" also acceptable? I've only learned "koko" as the proper word for "chicken," so I was surprised that this sentence had two options that needed to be chosen.
From my understanding, "koko" is a general term for chickens, whether it is male or female. "Kokino" is for female chickens only. Since it is still a "chicken", but a distinct type, it's still acceptable. I won't be surprised if they added "virkoko" (male chickens only) as an option.
That doesn't sound quite right. A hen is indeed a chicken, but a chicken need not be a hen. Suppose I have a rooster, and I say of it: "The chicken lives." (Correct, since it is indeed a (male) chicken.) Now, could that be translated as "La kokino vivas."? of course not: My rooster isn't a hen.
It may be they recognised that "chicken" in English is often used to specifically indicate a hen. Thus, kokino would be accepted for that sense of "chicken".
I was kind of disappointed because the "default" words are masculine and the feminine always derivate from them... It was specially disappointing to know the words patro/patrino (once the word "mother" is obviously derived from the tendecy babies have to first say the syllable "ma.. ma..." when they are about 6-8 months old... and "mom" is a similar word in every language, so the choice for "patrino" sounded sooooo unnatural.... Well, the existence of neutral words at least is something that brings a light back to me... So I ask to the Esperantistoj... are there any tendency to using neutral words when talking about groups? Is there a neutral word for each (or for most) noun?
You shouldn't view it like that. The default in Esperanto is the root word which is gender neutral.
Zamenhof's considerations did not come at a time when feminism and political correctness existed. I do not think it occurred to him that women in the future would consider this offensive (most women don't by the way... my sister never even thought about it when she was learning it).
I think Patro/Patrino is better than having two separate words. The keyword in Esperanto is efficiency. Patro/Matro would force you to learn two different words thus defeating the purpose of Esperanto, and then the system is gone.
Now you know that Hundo/Hundino, frato/fratino, knabo/knabino etc.
You learn two words for the price of one.
Once you know more Esperanto it becomes a nonissue, and 'patrino' will sound like mother to you.
I think patrino is great but why not make patro neutral and use a different suffix for father (like the proposed patricxo).
It would even reduce the amount of words people have to learn. Right now you have to say infano if you're talking about children in general, but wouldn't it make a lot more sense to derive boy and girl from the word for child?
So either knabo would become neutral and mean child, or infanicxo would mean boy while infanino would mean girl.
I think the issue here is not that anyone would rather there be separate words for males and females, like the
matro example you give, but where the heck is the gender-neutral form? It's easy enough to call "parents"
gepatroj, but there is a lot of disagreement in the community as to what to do with gender-neutral singular forms.
It's actually pretty parallel to the pronoun issue we have to deal with in English. "They" is obviously gender-neutral, but a lot of people object to it being used as a singular form. Then you have expressions like "he or she" which are really clunky and still inherently sexist.
I think what Monica's suggesting that
matro could have been the neutral term for a parent of either gender. "Mother" would then be
matrino and "father"
matriĉo, but those terms wouldn't need to be used half so much if we had a gender-neutral form.
Rather than changing roots like that, I'd suggest people simply start using the root forms without regard to gender. Then, through popular usage,
patro becomes "parent", and if you want to point out that the parent is male you could use
patriĉo for "father".
Gepatro works, but that's not how the language was originally designed. (
Ge- means "both", not "either".) And if you're going to break from Dr. Z's design anyway (because there is clearly a need to), then why not do it in an even, consistent way?
I believe you're saying we derive the gender-neutral term (e.g.,
gepatro) from the inherently masculine root (e.g.,
patro). In that case
koko should mean "rooster", and
gekoko should be the neutral term for the animal, regardless of sex. But I think generally what people actually do is use
koko as the neutral term and
virkoko to mean "rooster".
I like this second solution better, but it's still incredibly ugly to have a masculine prefix (
vir-) but a feminine suffix (
-ino). Oh well, ugliness is just something you learn to live with in Esperanto.
It is actually how the language was designed and it is incorrect to say that "ge-" does not mean "either gender". This is not breaking Z's design either
The prefix "ge-" only applies to familial terms.
If "ge-" however meant "both" and was meaning it exclusively so as to not be "either", then we would have a terrible problem. For instance:
Gefratoj kaj gekuzoj would mean a concept which is too specific for rational use. It would be exclusive of any cousin or siblings you had if they weren't consisting of both genders.
It would also mean that there would be no words for "parents", "grandparents", "siblings" and "cousins" inn Esperanto.
This however is not the case, the prefix "ge-" means "either gender" or "neutral gender" or "both gender"(inclusive) and as such we do have words for all those concepts of parents etc.
My siblings are still my gefratoj even if there are no girls and my parents are still my gepatroj even if there are no girls.
It does mean that there is an inconsistency/oddity in the fact that these are different for families than for animals but that is really not an issue, it isn't hard to learn. More importantly, we have no lack of ability to speak about who we need to speak about. I am even a transgender person and Esperanto provides no lack of communicability in my life.
I know it's an old comment... but I just noticed that the language is sexist towards men! If a word is neutral by default, with a suffix to mark the female words, then where is the male form? Why do us guys get lumped with the gender-neutral "its"? XD
But in all seriousness, a part of me thinks there ought to be a male suffix. Apparently, "vir" can be (at least logically) confusing. "Bovo" is a cow/bull, but what with compound words, "virbovo" is a man-bull, like the Minotaur... Yet, another part of me doesn't have a problem with it. I have never heard of there being confusion derived from the lack of a male suffix.
I've once heard a saying that, to paraphrase, says "A racist mind makes a racist kind." In this context, I take that to mean that the -in suffix would only be a problem if it were being used in a derogatory manner, as if though it were used to insult a "virino" for being whatever nasty thing they think about "virinoj" has that "viroj" don't.
Also, CliffJonesJr, how in the world is "he or she" sexist? -.-' Fun Fact: I live near a Choctaw indian reservation here in the good ole South. I have studied the language, and found that there are no pronouns (he, she, it, they) among other things that it lacks. The language is nearly entirely driven by context. "Bok ia" is, to be neutral, "They are going to the river." (Bok = river, ia = to go.) You can see the ambiguity...
Yet, "hattak" is "man/human" in the olden English style, but "ohoyo" is "woman". No pronouns, yet the language still differentiates between men and women. I wonder what that says about the inherent sexism of pronouns. x3
I don't have time to rehash all this right now, but the phrase "he or she" is sexist in a number of ways. First and most obviously, it's never "she or he", so there's an imbalance there. Much more importantly, though, it shows how we are required to specify the gender of each and every person we talk about! That's not biased against women in particular, but it does very clearly tell us that gender is important. An ideal, non-sexist language would leave gender unspecified by default and allow it to be specified by adding on suffixes or extra words, the same as we'd specify any other detail like size, color, or what have you.
Just as an example, so you can see my point, what if most languages didn't have a he/she distinction but used separate pronouns for dark-skinned vs. light-skinned individuals? That would obviously be a completely racist system. Regardless of how widespread it was, it would still need to be abolished as soon as possible. You couldn't use language like that without constantly putting people into unnecessary categories.
About Choctaw, it does actually have pronouns, but you don't have to use them if what you're talking about is clear enough from context. The language is a lot like Japanese this way, as well as in other ways. I actually wrote a paper on this in grad school studying linguistics. Choctaw is a good example of a language that does without this obligatory he/she distinction. The word
ilap can refer to either gender.
Just fyi Chinese also uses the same word for he /she "ta". They are written differently 他 , 她, but in the spoken language they are pronounced identically.
Oftentimes, I would be listening to a story about someone in Chinese and after a while I would have to ask if the person they were talking about was male or female. They often seemed puzzled; why did it matter? But as someone used to a he/she distinction, it did. Cultural training? Or just my native English language instincts, needing to know?
Good point! Yeah, I noticed that. I think the same goes for the Mandarin word for "it" (
它). I'm curious how this relates to the other Chinese languages/dialects.
Your example about wanting to know whether the character is male or female is most definitely a cultural thing. Going back to my race example, have you ever noticed somebody telling a story and pointing out the race of this person or that and everybody feels a little uncomfortable like, "Why does that matter?"
@Ponola Yes, as you say, you really don't get it. You've completely missed the point. It's not a problem for the language to allow you to specify gender, but it is problem for the language to require it.
I still don't get it. "He or she" is sexist, but "She or he" isn't? Word order is sexist? What do you mean lack of balance? Is the word on the left of the "or" balance supposed to imply more weight?
And both languages mentioned here still distinguish between man and woman, even if not with pronouns. How is specificity racist or sexist? If it's sexist to differentiate between "he or she", than isn't it just as sexist to differentiate in the nouns "man or woman"?
Also, racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. Even if there were pronouns for specifying dark vs light skinned individuals, it's only that. It wouldn't be racist.
Honestly, you make it sound like people who say, "The shorter black woman in the crowd there almost lost her backpack" might as well be saying, "The stumpy subhuman wench in the crowd there almost stupidly dropped her backpack."
What I'm saying is, I don't see how "woman", "she", or "black" is derogatory by my mere mentioning it!
Mi pensas ke koko estas plenaĝa besto, la vorto kokido(chicken) estas pli preciza.
Animal names are gender neutral in Esperanto, making koko a chicken, virkoko a rooster, and kokino a hen
Actually, it's not precise at all.
Kokido = chick Koko = chicken (when referring to the animal) or cock (male chicken) kokino = hen... female chicken.
At last! Somebody who knows that a chicken isn't an adult bird. My father was a poultry farmer so I know about this. Chick and chicken are synonyms. The adults are either hens or cocks. There is know gender neutral term in English.
What you're talking about is agricultural jargon, not the common uage. See here for reference: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/chicken
Definition 2 is as you say, but definition 1 is the animal Gallus domesticus, any age, any gender. Definition 3 is the meat. Context determines the meaning of the word in any given situation.
In natural languages, words mean exactly what the people who use them mean when they say them. And in English we use "chick" to speak of infant chickens.
I think that "koko","kokido", and "kokino" should be acceptable.
Koko would be chicken. But kokido would be specifically a chick and kokino a hen. Virkoko would be a rooster. So I can see why they are not alternatives.
It's tempting to jump to that conclusion, isn't it? But instead of
infanino, we have
knabino. And then we need the completely separate
infano for the gender-neutral term. Unless...
geknabo? Ugh, so ugly.
Yes, it is. And it's common to use it like that for animals. However, for humans Zamenhof had already formed the male and female versions by the time he came up with vir-, thus it's less common to use it there. Also for professions. and similar, it's more common to use the separate words "vira" and "ina" (male and female): "Vira lernanto kaj ina lernanto" (male pupil and female pupil).
There is a problem here.
Koko is either a cock or a chicken (when we refer to the animal in its totality... cocks, hens and chicks). Kokido is a chick (formally) but can be translated as chicken if you are an English-speaker. Kokino is a hen or chicken (if you eat it... again usually if you are an English-speaker).
The problem as I see it is that Esperanto is a very specific and effective language compared to English. Esperanto does not allow you to be 'vague' ... So actually when you refer to the animal 'chicken' the word is koko.
Chicken is GENDER NEUTRAL in English! I have reported this. Hen is a mature female chicken. rooster is a mature male chicken. a pullet is an immature female chicken. a cockeral is an immature male chicken. Chicken is the general name for that animal. Kokino IS NOT CORRECT, and because I did NOT select 'kokino' AND 'koko' as both correct, I got marked wrong....
Why is it not La koko estas beston kaj vivas? Is the accusative not used with estas?
I believe you don't add the -n suffix with Predicate Nominatives/Adjectives.
Esperanto does not have grammatical gender. La is used for ALL nouns, regardless of gender. However, whenever you add -in- right before the last o in the noun, the noun becomes female (if possible.) For example:
Viro (man) --- Virino (woman)
Knabo (boy) --- Knabino (girl)
Koko (chicken) --- Kokino (hen)
Right! That's what I've heard. You see the imbalance, right? If
koko is any chicken, regardless of sex, then
viro should be a person, and
knabo should be a child.
virknabo are pretty ugly though. I'd support the
Yeah, I really wish the -iĉo suffix was accepted into the standard. It would even make other words easier because you would be able to say "knabo" if you meant a child without specifying gender and not "infano."
I guess this is going by the "neutrality" of words in Esperanto, i.e. transient nouns are either male or female unless specified via prefix/suffix? In this example, am I correct to presume it's virkoko and kokino if we really want to be technical about it?
koko means either "hen" (kokino) or "rooster" (virkoko) as adults. a chicken (young hen osr rooster" is (should be) "kok-ido" a new born chicken (chick) then, should be called (kokideto) (small chicken)
Beeing french, i may be wrong with the meaning of "hen" "chicken" and "rooster", if so, please feel free to correct me !
This question has no answer, i choose both of the possible answers and it still errore ng for this app?!
Surely only 'La koko estas besto kaj vivas' should be correct. 'Kokino' in English is 'chick', a very young chicken. Since this was not specified in the English sentence, why should I be expected to include it in the Esperanto translation?