Mesaĝoj: 158
Lingvo: English
BlackOtaku (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-23 20:17:46
Honestly, the use of the word "ci" strikes me as ranging from awkward to repulsive. Thou/Thee are never used, in my experience, but in a light-hearted, joking manner. Nothing to compare there. "Ci" is just never used. All of the uses of "ci" I've ever seen are when it has been used to denote condescension, awkwardly shoehorned in by someone who doesn't know better, or mentioned in discussions by other people who find its use uncomfortable. To use it, blanketly, in spite of that just marks the user as disrespectful.
It's like the word "sweetie". I might call my significant other "sweetie", in private, and that's alright. I might use it jokingly, among friends that I know will not react adversely to it, and that's alright. I would never refer to anyone, outside of those groups, as "sweetie". It's condescending and creepy.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-23 21:32:48
orthohawk:...I can see no advantage... to immediately jumping to the conclusion that a person who addresses me with "ci" is doing so to be offensive...That's not what people are saying. There's no implication that the person who uses ci is trying to be offensive. They simply are, in the same way that someone you barely know might be if they were constantly slapping you on the back, grabbing your arm, standing too close, and breathing on you while they talked to you. "Back OFF, man." They think they're being friendly, but they're mostly just being oblivious to social convention.
Being overly familiar with non-intimates can be seen as offensive behavior, even when there is no overt intention to offend. It is an intrusion into personal space without an invitation. There are gradations of "offensiveness", and this is certainly on the lower end of the scale, but it's still something to keep in mind. Why make new acquaintances uncomfortable from the get-go? Simply asserting "well, they shouldn't be offended" doesn't really address the reality.
You can't go wrong by using vi. You can go wrong by using ci. So, don't use ci, and you'll never have to worry about it.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-23 22:07:38
BlackOtaku:Is "y'all" really an odd expression in some parts?I use it when speaking informally. It comes in handy, but it definitely has its place. I would not use it in professional documentation, for example. It does not belong in a business letter, or in a presentation to the stockholders. You probably should not use it when pleading a case in front of the US Supreme Court. Just sayin'.
BlackOtaku:Honestly, the use of the word "ci" strikes me as ranging from awkward to repulsive... All of the uses of "ci" I've ever seen are when it has been used to denote condescension, awkwardly shoehorned in by someone who doesn't know better, or mentioned in discussions by other people who find its use uncomfortable.That's an almost perfect summary of my experience as well.
BlackOtaku:To use it, blanketly, in spite of that just marks the user as disrespectful.And I think that's what's meant when people talk about ci's offensiveness. It's offensive because it communicates a certain level of disrespect, in the sense of being inappropriately overly-familiar with someone.
I think this conversation is an indication of how socially complicated the use of ci can be. My guess is that Zamenhof only realized this after the fact, decided that this was a complication that a simple language shouldn't contain and didn't actually need, and belatedly offered his counsel not to use it. In effect, he was saying "I made a mistake; please remove this." Except that he clearly wasn't the dictatorial sort, so he worded it pretty weakly. I would still heed his advice. Ci is unnecessary.
jkph00 (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-23 23:21:21
RiotNrrd:And I think that's what's meant when people talk about ci's offensiveness. It's offensive because it communicates a certain level of disrespect, in the sense of being inappropriately overly-familiar with someone.I suspect anyone who used it inappropriately (but innocently) would simply not understand its value: that it is, in fact, familiar, even intimate. I would not hesitate to use it to address my wife or my children. I would never use it to address a stranger except to express contempt.
In English we made a decision to keep the "you" form of address. It is the formal pronoun rather than informal, yet at least here in the U.S. we have lost the distinction between an acquaintance ("you" ) and a friend ("thee" ). It is a valuable distinction in many other languages.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 00:07:42
jkph00:It is a valuable distinction in many other languages.I would say that it is considered a valuable distinction by some of those whose native languages make that distinction*.
English doesn't make the distinction, so on the whole we don't miss it. We get that same hey-it-should-work-like-MY-language annoyed feeling from other aspects of Esperanto (like the possessive; that whole la X de Y thing, instead of Y's X, just seems so cumbersome, makes my jaw tired just thinking of spitting out all those extra syllables and having to rearrange the words and...)
--------------------------
* And a few whose don't, because there's always a few.
Vespero_ (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 03:22:23
In English, if you use "thou" at all, you'll get strange looks. Most people only know it from Monty Python and Shakespeare, and it has no connotations beyond an archaic setting.
Vortaro.net includes the following Zamenhof quote in its entry for ci: "diri al ĉiu, ĉiuj k[aj] ĉio nur 'vi'"
Which makes me wonder why ci exists at all. I think if someone insisted on its use with me, I would ignore them not because of any connotations, but because it's so aberrant from modern styles than anyone forcing it on others must be insufferably pedantic and caught up in their own ideas of society.
But I think that can be said for people who impress their preferences on other people regardless of whether it's an anachronism.
Zafur (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 05:04:59
I try to keep English idioms out of my Esperanto, so my first impression (until after reading this thread) would be that the speaker wants to use a singular pronoun and is not being overtly friendly or aggressive. I would soon find out if I were mistaken in any case...
Edit: Also what's with the "forcing" thing? Just continuing to use "ci" after you request otherwise? I could understand so if they were using it to be familiar, but otherwise I find the concept sort of like ignoring people who try to keep ĥ alive. O_o If the person explains they use it for singular vi then I'd accept being called "ci". Eh.
Ondo (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 06:39:58
Breto:I think you should, and record people's reactions with a hidden camera. It sounds like a fun social experiment to me.Ci pravas, kompreneble. Thou art right, of course.
...
Not that any of that has anything to do with "ci", of course.
Tjeri (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 06:47:38
"Ci" is just never used.That's just untrue.
You can find it in hundreds of books, and not only in the above mentioned Maigret, from writers from all over the world, even native english speaker Trevor Steele, and I've already heard it in private circles.
Ci is just not used in normal conversation, which means that if someone uses it talking to you, this is not a normal conversation or you may feel offended. Personnally I'd probably answer something like: Kial via moŝto ciumas min?
sudanglo (Montri la profilon) 2013-februaro-24 11:28:44
Ci is just not used in normal conversationAbsolutely. And in the Maigret in question the offending translator uses it to render normal dialogue. So I still want my money back.